Tel-Serv Co.

ANSERPHONE OF MICHIGAN, INC. Anserphone of Michigan, Inc., and Greenwald Cor- poration, a joint venture doing business under various names and styles, including Tel-Serv Company and Local 299, International Brother- hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind. Case 7-CA-7413 June 30, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS FANNING, MCCULLOCH, AND BROWN On January 15, 1970, Trial Examiner Phil Saun- ders issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding , finding that the Respondent had en- gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices , and recommending that it cease and de- sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner 's Decision 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 powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed . The rulings are hereby affirmed . The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision , the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case , and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions , and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner, for the reasons ex- pressed herein. The Trial Examiner found , and the record shows, that during the summer of 1969 the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the following conduct of its agents: (1) Supervisor Walasek (a) coercively inter- rogated employee McCullough , promised her an in- crease in pay, and gave her a pay raise; (b) inter- rogated employee Smith as to what she thought about the Union , told her the pay raises the Union would ask for would bankrupt the Respondent, and promised her insurance and other benefits as well as frequent pay raises ; (c) asked employee Hughes if she had heard the employees discussing the Union, encouraged her to talk to them and "get them to stay " with the Company , told her if the Union came in the Respondent would go bankrupt, promised insurance coverage , periodic pay raises, and increased vacation benefits, and gave her a pay raise; and (d) promised employee Hitchcock in- surance coverage, told her that , if the employees 305 successfully organized a union and it asked for ad- ditional wages, the Company would be put in bank- ruptcy and 120 employees would be out of jobs, and increased her pay. (2) Supervisor Musser (a) asked employee Hitchcock what she thought about the Union, why she thought it would be a good thing, and how the other employees felt about it; and (b) asked em- ployee Hughes if she had received a card from the Union and if Musser could have the card. The Respondent did not except to these findings, and we adopt them. We also find, in agreement with the Trial Ex- aminer, that the Respondent unlawfully discharged Norma St. Charles. The record shows that St. Charles was an active advocate of the Union and solicited many employees to join. In June, Office Manager Stone, on instructions from the Union, requested the other office managers to compile the names and addresses of the employees in their of- fice and give them to St. Charles so that authoriza- tion cards could be sent to the employees. St. Charles received the names and addresses, for- warded them to the Union, and the cards were sent out. The General Counsel's witnesses, whom the Trial Examiner credited, testified that the following events occurred on July 1: Supervisors Walasek and Musser arrived at the Respondent's Dearborn of- fice, where employees McCullough and St. Charles were employed, and called McCullough into the manager's office there. In this conversation, during which the supervisors discussed employee com- plaints and working conditions and, as set forth above, interrogated McCullough and promised her a pay raise, Walasek informed McCullough that he was going to discharge St. Charles because "she had stolen confidential information." McCullough replied that St. Charles "wouldn't do anything like that, and he was making a big mistake...." Nevertheless, as McCullough left the office, the su- pervisor told her to send St. Charles in. When St. Charles entered the office, Musser informed her she was discharged. Although St. Charles asked to be given a reason, Walasek and Musser refused to do so. At the conclusion of the General Counsel's case, Respondent's counsel declined to call any wit- nesses, and contended in his oral argument before the Trial Examiner that St. Charles was discharged, as employee McCullough testified, because she had taken confidential records in the form of em- ployees' names and addresses, but that the evidence failed to show that the Respondent knew what St. Charles did with the records or that she was en- gaged in union activity. In its answer to the com- 184 NLRB No. 31 306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD plaint and in its brief to the Board , the Respondent denies that St. Charles was discharged because of her activity on behalf of the Union . We find no merit in these contentions. The undisputed evidence shows that when Super- visors Walasek and Musser became aware of the union activity among the Respondent's employees they launched a campaign to defeat the Union by unlawful means and to discover the identity of em- ployees who favored the Union . The General Coun- sel was not able to show how the Respondent knew St. Charles possessed lists of employees , but the Respondent concededly had such knowledge and discharge her for that reason . In view of the strong union animus displayed by Respondent , particularly its two supervisors , Walasek and Musser, it is reasonable to infer that as soon as they discovered St. Charles had obtained the names and addresses of the employees, they concluded rightly , or knew from the same source of information , that she was using the information for organizational purposes. It is inconceivable that the Respondent knew St. Charles possessed a list of employees , but did not know her activities were in any way connected with the union campaign , of which the Respondent was, as the record shows, acutely aware . We conclude, as did the Trial Examiner, that the Respondent seized upon the alleged confidential nature of the in- formation , even though the Respondent had no established uniform policy in this respect , as a pre- text to conceal its determination to get rid of an ac- tive union adherent. Such a discharge, for the pur- pose of discouraging membership in a labor or- ganization , violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Moreover, it is clear that St. Charles did not steal the information, but was given the names and ad- dresses by others , Respondent's office managers, who were rightfully in possession of such informa- tion. Accordingly , even if the Respondent had be- lieved St. Charles had stolen the information, since this belief was false, and St . Charles was using the lists in connection with legitimate union organizing, her discharge violated Section 8(a)(1). As the Supreme Court stated with approval in N.L.R.B. v. Burnup & Sims, Inc., 379 U .S. 21, 23: Over and again the Board has ruled that § 8(a)(1) is violated if an employee is discharged for misconduct arising out of a protected ac- tivity , despite the employer 's good faith, when it is shown that the misconduct never oc- curred. We conclude therefore , alternatively , that the Respondent 's discharge of St. Charles was in viola- tion of Section 8(a)(I ).t ' We see no relevance to the factor discussed in the last sentence in fn 4 of the 'rrial Examiner 's Decision, and do not rely on it ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Respondent , Anserphone of Michigan , Inc., Detroit, Michigan , its officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE PHIL SAUNDERS, Trial Examiner : The unfair labor practice on which the complaint of August 4, 1969,1 is based was filed by Local 299, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind., herein called the Union , on July 3 , against An- serphone of Michigan , Inc., and Greenwald Cor- poration , a joint venture doing business under vari- ous names and styles, including Tel -Serv Company, herein called the Respondent or the Company. The issues litigated were whether or not the Company violated Section 8 (a)(1) and ( 3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. The Company denied the unfair labor practice allega- tions . Both parties engaged in oral arguments, and the Respondent filed a brief. Upon the entire record and from my observation and demeanor of the witnesses, I make the follow- ing:2 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Anserphone of Michigan, Inc., is , and has been at all times material herein , a corporation duly or- ganized under , and existing by virtue of, the laws of the State of New York . Its office in that State is located at 138-30 Jamaica Avenue , Jamaica, New York. Anserphone 's registered agent in the State of Michigan is the Corporation Company, 615 Griswold , Detroit, Michigan 48226. Greenwald Corporation is a corporation duly organized under, and existing by virtue of, the laws of the State of Michigan . Anserphone and Greenwald are, and have been at all times material herein, engaged in a joint venture doing business under various names and styles, including Tel-Serv Company. At all times material herein, Respondent has maintained its principal telephone answering ser- All dates are 1969 unless specifically stated otherwise z All credibility resolutions made herein are based on a composite evaluation of the demeanor of the witnesses and the probabilities of the evidence as a whole ANSERPHONE OF MICHIGAN, INC. vice office and place of business at 6346 West Mc- Nichols Road in Detroit. Respondent maintains other places of business located through the Detroit metropolitan area. Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein , engaged in the business of operating a telephone answering service, and Respondent 's place of business located in the Detroit metropol itan area are the only facilities in- volved in this proceeding. During the past calendar year the Respondent, Tel-Serv Company, sold services valued in excess of $50,000 to firms in the State of Michigan , and each firm in turn shipped goods and/or sold services valued in excess of $50,000 directly to firms and points located outside the State of Michigan. In the past calendar year the Respondent , Tel-Serv Com- pany, also rented equipment and services valued in excess of $100,000 from Michigan Bell Telephone Company. Respondent is now, and has been at all times material herein , an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is, and has been at all times material herein , a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The amended complaint alleges that on certain dates in June, July, and August, the Respondent coercively interrogated and threatened employees, promised and granted increased wages, and promised improved vacation benefits and medical insurance. The complaint further alleges that on July 1, the Respondent discriminatorily discharged Norma St. Charles. It appears that in late spring or early summer of 1969, the Respondent's employees became dissatisfied with various working conditions, includ- ing wages, and started discussions relating to possi- ble union representation. Mary Stone, formerly the manager of the Respondent's Dearborn office, con- tacted the Union and was given instructions to compile the names and addresses of employees so authorization cards could be sent to them.' Mary Stone contacted Office Managers Helene Konye, Edith Campbell, and Sybil Pudavick and asked them to send the names and addresses of their em- ' At this time Stone also gave the Union the telephone number of St Charles ' In early June, Mary Stone and Helene Konye were also making plans to form their own telephone answering service and in late June make a con- tract with Michigan Bell Telephone Company to acquire the necessary telephone equipment Stone performed no services for Respondent after June 16, 1969, at which time she entered the hospital for surgery The Company attacks the overall credibility of former Supervisors Stone and Konye on the basis that they were obviously prejudiced by reason of the competitive business which they started to establish during the union ac- 307 ployees to St. Charles. Stone then contacted the Respondent's 6-mile installation-its main office- and asked an employee there to gather the names and addresses of the employees at the other five or six offices, and to send such information to St. Charles.' It further appears that on June 30, Konye attended a meeting of office managers at which Su- pervisors Paul Walasek and Leona Musser were present. Wallasek wanted the office managers to tell him the complaints of their employees, and then stated he would visit each of the area offices and talk with the employees. On August 6, a representation election took place in Case 7-RC-9515. Gwen McCullough gave credited testimony which established that on July 1, Supervisor Wal- lasek inquired how she "felt about this," and when McCullough asked "about what," Wallasek replied, "You know what I am talking about." She told him he was referring to the authorization card and that she had signed one. Walasek then informed McCul- lough he was going to discharge St. Charles because she had stolen confidential information. Walasek also inquired if she had ever received a raise in pay, and when informed that she had not, but had been promised a 5-cent raise every 3 months, Walasek then turned to Musser and told her to give McCul- lough an increase in pay, and on or about July 14 McCullough did receive a 5-cent raise. The credited testimony of Beverly Hitchcock established that on the day of the election, August 6, Supervisor Musser called her and inquired of Hitchcock "how is your conscious [sic]," and a week or so prior thereto, at a dinner given by the Company, Musser had asked Hitchcock what she thought about the Union, why she thought it would be a good thing , and also inquired how the other employees felt about it. Additional testimony by Hitchcock reveals that early in July, she had a con- ference with Walasek and he initially asked about her dislikes in the operations of the office, but then inquired if she would be interested in Blue Cross and hospitalization insurance, and went on to in- form her the Company was going to offer these benefits. Walasek concluded this conference by stating he was sure Hitchcock was aware the girls were trying to organize a union and if they were successful , and the Union then asked for additional wages for employees, it would put the Company in bankruptcy and 120 girls would be out of jobs.,' Hitchcock further related that after this conversa- tivities here in question Stone and Konye opened their own answering ser- vice on or about August 18 and employed three of the girls who had previ- ously worked for the Company, including St Charles However, this record gives no indication of whether the Company had individual employment contracts and, if so, whether or not such contracts contained restrictive clauses forbidding a competitive business by former employees Hitchcock also talked with Walasek at the dinner given by the Com- pany prior to the election , and on this occasion Walasek informed Hitchcock the dinner was being held so he could get together with all the employees at one time to "let them know exactly how the company feels " 308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion with Walasek she received three pay increases (on July 1 she was getting $1.65 an hour and at the present gets $1.75). Andrea Smith gave credited testimony which establishes that on or about July 11, Walasek in- formed her that the girls "had some gripes" and he was there to take care of them. He then asked Smith if she knew the Union was trying to come in, inquired what she thought about the Union, men- tioned the financial predicament of the Company, and stated if he granted the pay raises a union would ask for, the Company would be bankrupt. Walasek further told Smith the employees were going to get insurance with other benefits, and would also receive frequent pay raises. During the week of June 23, Supervisor Musser asked employee Dorothy Hughes if she had received a card from the Union and if she could have the card. On or about July 10, Walasek asked Hughes if she had heard the employees discussing the advent of a union and wondered if Hughes would talk to the girls and "get them to stay" with the Company. On this occasion Walasek also told Hughes that if a union came in the Company would go bankrupt, that he would give the employees Blue Cross and life insurance coverage, said there would be periodic pay raises, and further promised a I- week vacation for employees working over 1 year and 2 weeks' vacation for 2-year employees. A week or so after this conversation Hughes received a pay increase. The foregoing instances and statements at- tributed to the Respondent are not instances of ob- jective inquiry as to the propriety of recognizing a labor organization, and neither do they amount to the exercise of free speech under Section 8(c) of the Act. Rather they include the following-at- tempts to inquire into sympathies and desires by asking employees why a union would be good for them, what they thought about the Union, asking employees how other employees felt about the Union, if they had received union authorization cards, promising and granting wage increases, promising a medical insurance program, promising vacation benefits, and the statements to employees that the Company would go bankrupt if the Union asked for pay increase for all employees-and must be deemed an inplied threat as a result of em- ployees' support of the Union. The above constitute violations off8(a)(I) and I so find. This is especially true where the above statements attributed to the Company were made to employees during the in- secure period shortly prior to the election on Au- gust 6. Norma St. Charles was employed by the Respon- dent from January or February until July 1 in its ' There is no evidence whatsoever to show that St Charles was a super- visor She had absolutely nothing to do with hiring-and firing of employees nor did she ever reprimand or discipline them, but merely listened to com- plaints of customers or clients when the manager of the Dearborn office Dearborn office .6 St. Charles received the names and addresses of the employees for the Union after Mary Stone had made some initial contacts as aforestated, and then sent this information to the Union. St. Charles did considerable talking for the Union at the Dearborn office , and also discussed the Union with several girls who worked on the night shift at the other offices of the Respondent. When Musser discharged her on July 1, she was given no reason for the termination. From the evidence in this record it is clear that the Company had prior knowledge of St. Charles' activity for the Union. As pointed out, it was St. Charles who gathered names and addresses for the Union, spoke openly for the Union, and made the necessary contacts with the other offices. The Respondent also admits in its answer the Helene Konye was a supervisor,' and this record further reveals that Mary Stone asked Konye to get a list of employees and their addresses at the Respondent's Trinity office in the New Center Building, and dur- ing the first week or 10 days in June, Konye com- plied this information and then sent it to St. Charles as she had been instructed to do so by Stone. Therefore, during the critical time in question-and prior to the discharge of St. Charles-Konye was a supervisor and at the same time had direct and specific knowledge of the union activity of St. Charles. In addition, the Respondent also admits that Mary Stone was a former supervisor, but ap- parently contends this relationship was terminated on June 15 or 16, the last day Stone actually worked for the Company and the day before she went to the hospital. Stone received no pay from the Company subsequent to her last day at work, but testified that after being released from the hospital on June 28, she called and talked with Musser several times to let her know she was ready to return, but Musser would never call her back as she had promised to do. On August 6, Stone sub- mitted her resignation to Musser. For purposes here I need not reach the question of whether Stone was terminated on or about June 17 or was employed until her verbal resignation on August 6, because in the latter part of May or early June, she and St. Charles discussed the Union and prior to going into the hospital on June 17, Stone had requested several other office managers to send the names and addresses of their employees to St. Charles. Therefore, in the first half of June when Stone was admittedly a supervisor, she too had direct and specific knowledge of the interest and union activi- ty of St. Charles. It is also well-established Board and court precedent that such knowledge may be inferred from the record as a whole. Wiese Plow Welding Co., 123 NLRB 616, Radio Officers' Union was not present ' Konye was employed from January to July 1, was manager of the Respondent's Birmingham office, and had also worked in the Dearborn of- fice as manager ANSERPHONE OF MICHIGAN, INC. of the Commercial Telegraphers Union, AFL v. N.L.R.B., 347 U.S. 17 (1954); and Pyne Moulding Corporation, 1 10 NLRB 1700. The testimony given by McCullough is that on July 1, Walasek told her that St. Charles was being discharged as she had stolen confidential informa- tion." In oral argument the Respondent stated as follows: "The testimony offered by witnesses for the General Counsel established that the Company stated that one employee, St. Charles, was being discharged because she had taken confidential records. And, of course, that is true. She stated that she had received and had forwarded to the Union the names and addresses of all of the 'employees. Now, there is no indication that the Company knew what she did with these records. The only established fact is that she managed to get a hold of these records, and the Company did become aware of that fact, and they considered that a basis for her discharge ****1 1 The evidence in this record will not support the Respondent's argument of contentions. In the first instance, Mary Stone had three office managers, Konye, Campbell, and Pudavick, send the names and addresses of their girls to St. Charles, and if there were any confidential records invaded and taken, it all started with the Respondent's own managers and supervisors. It appears highly unlike- ly to me that Respondent's office managers would compile or permit the ascertainment of names and addresses of people within their own office if such were confidential, and, furthermore, it is also un- likely that if this conduct was actually violative of Company rules, recourse would result against an employee rather than against the managers in- volved who certainly must be more closely identified with the Company, and with responsibili- ties to execute the policies of the Company. In the final analysis it appears obvious to me that the Company had no enforceable or uniform policy which prevented one employee from disclosing the employment relationships of other employees, and this record is lacking in any affirmative proof by of- ficers of the Company that it had such a policy. The violative 8(a)(1) conduct reveals that the Respon- dent knew full well of the efforts by employees to bring the Union in, and it then promised benefits and interrogated employees in attempts to stop the organizational drive. With the events and circum- stances surrounding this case, it is also clear the Company gained full knowledge of the overt and intense activities by St. Charles on behalf of the Union, and with motivation to rid itself of one of the main instigators, discharged her on July 1. There is nothing in this record to show that St. Charles had any bad work habits or that she had ever been reprimanded or warned about any aspects of her work. There is only one inescapable conclusion-she was active for the Union and was then discharged because of it. " the Company did not produce or call any witnesses to testify in their behalf 309 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section Ill, above, occurring in connection with the opera- tions described in section 1, above, have a close, in- timate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY As it has been found that Respondent has en- gaged in certain unfair labor practices , it recom- mended that the Board issue the Recommended Order set forth below requiring Respondent to cease and desist from said unfair labor practices and to take certain affirmative action which will ef- fectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the Respondent unlawfully discharged Norma St. Charles on July 1, 1969, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to reinstate St. Charles to her former equivalent posi- tion of employment , without prejudice to her seniority and other' rights and privileges, and to make her whole for any loss of earnings suffered as a result of Respondent's discrimination against her by payment to her of a sum of money equal to that which she would have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination against her to the date of offer of reinstatement less interim earnings, and in a manner consistent with Board policy set out in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with in- terest added thereto in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. It will also be recommended that the Respondent preserve and make available to the Board, upon request, payroll and other records to facilitate the computation of the backpay due. It will be further recommended , in view of the nature of the unfair labor practices the Respondent- has engaged in, that it cease and desist from infring- ing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed em- ployees by Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: . CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3. Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, thereby violat- ing Section 8(a)( 1) of the Act. 427-835 C, - 74 - 21 310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL 4. By discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of Norma St. Charles, thereby discouraging membership in the above Union, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec- tion 8(a)(3) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record in this case, it is recommended that the Company, its of- ficers, agents,successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Coercively interrogating employees concern- ing their sympathies and activities with respect to the Union or any other labor organization. (b) Promising and granting wage increases in ef- forts to have employees refrain from union activi- ties. (c) Promising medical insurance programs and vacation benefits. (d) Threatening employees with reprisals (bank- ruptcy) if the Union asked for wage increases. (e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exer- cise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named Union or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activity for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Norma St. Charles immediate and full reinstatement to her former or a substantially equivalent position, without any prejudice to seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of earnings she may have suf- fered as a result of the discrimination, in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision en- titled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order. (c) Post at its offices in the Detroit area, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."9 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con- secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in- LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cluding all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.10 9 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, recommendations , and Recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 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 the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board " shall be changed to read " Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " 10 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 10 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 WE WILL NOT discourage union activity in the Union named herein or any other labor or- ganization by discharging or by otherwise dis- criminating against any employees because of their union activities. WE WILL NOT offer, grant , or promise you benefits and wage increases to discourage you from joining or assisting a union. WE WILL NOT promise medical insurance programs and vacation benefits to discourage union activity. WE WILL NOT interrogate employees con- cerning their sympathies and activities with respect to the Union or any other labor or- ganization. WE WILL NOT threaten reprisal if the Union is successful and asks for wage increases. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to join or not to join a union and to engage in union or concerted ac- tivities. ANSERPHONE OF WE WILL offer Norma St. Charles immediate and full reinstatement with backpay. All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above-named Union, or any other labor or- ganization. ANSERPHONE OF MICHIGAN, INC., AND GREENWALD CORPORATION, A JOINT VENTURE DOING BUSINESS UNDER VARIOUS NAMES AND STYLES, INCLUDING TEL-SERV COMPANY (Employer) MICHIGAN, INC. 311 Dated By (Representative ) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or com- pliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washing- ton Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan 48226, Telephone 313-226-3200.