The La Grange Land Corp.

COLONIAL MANOR CONVALESCENT & NURSING HOME 693 Colonial Manor Convalescent & Nursing Home, a Division of' The La Grange Land Corporation and Council # 19, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees , AFL-CIO. Case 13-CA-9094 July 29, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS On January 30, 1970, Trial Examiner John G. Gregg issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac- tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering 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, the briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and orders that Respondent, Colonial Manor Con- valescent & Nursing Home, a Division of the La Grange Land Corporation, La Grange, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner 's recom- mended Order. ' The name of the Respondent appears as amended at the trial. 16, and 1.7, 1969, based on a charge filed by Coun- -cil #19, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, on May 6, 1969, as amended on May 8, 1969, and a complaint is- sued October 29, 1969, by the Regional Director for Region 13 of the National Labor Relations Board. The complaint alleges essentially that the Respondent committed unfair labor practices in refusing and failing to reinstate its employee Ollie Mason, because he had engaged in activities pro- tected by the Act, and that thereby the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. In its answer the Respondent denies the commission of any unfair labor practices. Upon the entire record in this case, from my ob- servation of the demeanor of the witnesses as they testified, and after due consideration of the argu- ments and briefs herein, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Illinois, maintaining a place of business at 339 Ninth Avenue, La Grange, illinois, under the name of Colonial Manor Convalescent & Nursing Home, a Division of the La Grange Land Corporation,' where it is now, and at all times material herein has been, engaged in the business of providing residential nursing, convalescent and health care services, and related services. During the past year, a representative period, the Respondent, in the course and conduct of its busi- ness operations, realized gross revenues in excess of $800,000. During the past year, a representative period, the Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, caused goods valued in excess of $50,000 to be shipped into Illinois directly or indirectly from out of the State of Il- linois. The Respondent is now, and at all times material herein has been, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Council , # 19, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees , AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , is and has been at all times material herein a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JOHN G. GREGG, Trial Examiner: This trial was conducted at Chicago, Illinois, on December 15, III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The complaint alleges essentially that on or about April 14, 1969, certain employees of the Respond- ' The name of the Respondent appears as amended at the hearing 184 NLRB No. 80 694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ent at the convalescent home engaged in a con- certed withholding of their services in support of the Union, and that on or about May 2, 1969, this concerted withholding of services was terminated. It alleges that since on or about May 2, 1969, and continuing to date, the Respondent has refused and failed to reinstate its employee Ollie Mason at the convalescent home because he had engaged in the concerted withholding of services described above, and/or because of his other activities on behalf of the Union, and/or because of his participation in other concerted activities for the purposes of col- lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec- tion, and that by the aforesaid acts, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em- ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Sec- tion 7 of the Act, thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and that by said acts the Respondent did discriminate and is discriminating against em- ployees with respect to hire, tenure, and other con- ditions of employment in order to discourage mem- bership in a labor organization, thereby violating Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. A. The Activities of Ollie Mason Neal Bratcher, an employee of Council #19, Chicago and Cook County , American Federation of State , County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, testified that in connection with his job he had occasion to participate in the organizing campaign among the employees of the nursing home . Bratcher stated that the campaign com- menced some time around February or March 1968 and that Ollie Mason, an employee and the organiz- ing keyman at the home , was instructed to secure authorization cards signed for membership in the Union . On May 13 , 1968, according to Bratcher, leaflets were passed out at the home , and he, Bratcher, gave copies of the leaflet to the key mem- bers who passed them out at the gate outside the home . Bratcher testified that following the certifi- cation of Council #19 as the bargaining representa- tive of the employees , meetings were held in an at- tempt to negotiate a contract and that Ollie Mason was on the Union 's negotiating team. About 4 or 5 days prior to the strike , which com- menced on April 14, 1968, Bratcher attended a bargaining meeting in connection with the contract proposals . For the Union at the meeting were Ollie Mason , Mrs. Kemmerling , Mrs. Camp, Tom Beagley, and Bratcher, while for the convalescent home , Mrs. Temple and Mr . Colianni were the representatives together with Mr . Lesser, the attor- ney for the home, and Mr. Criel, a labor relations consultant for the home . Bratcher testified that after April 14, there were pickets around the home, that he appointed Ollie Mason as picket captain, and that Ollie Mason was on the picket line for the duration of the strike , a period of relatively 2 weeks . Bratcher described the placards used by the pickets, indicating that one legend stated "on strike," one was on pay increases , and another on vacations and fringe benefits. The record indicates that on May 2, 1969, Tom Beagley , director of Council #19, addressed to Mr. Herbert Lesser, attorney for the Respondent, a letter received by Mr. Lesser shortly after mailing which indicated that the strikers had been in- structed to return to work, and which requested a meeting for the purpose of negotiating a contract. The record also discloses that on January 23, 1969, Herbert Lesser, sent a letter to Ollie Mason in which Lesser advised Mason to confine himself to the proper and correct performance of assigned duties and to restrict his union activities to his lunch hour, rest periods, and off-duty hours and "not to interfere with the normal functioning of the nursing home at any time." Lesser went on to in- dicate that Mason had seen fit to disregard these in- structions and had also engaged in other allegedly improper acts enumerated in the letter. The letter closed with the statement that it was a final warning and indicated that "If you at any time after receipt of this letter seek to influence the actions of any person connected with the nursing home in any way other than those rights permitted you by law to act on behalf of the Union at recognized bargaining sessions, you will be summarily dismissed." Subsequently, under date of February 25, 1969, Lesser wrote to the Union indicating that Mason was soliciting support for a strike and was threaten- ing possible physical violence for those not support- ing the strike. Lesser advised the Union that he be- lieved the Union had agreed to advise Mason that Mason 's union activities were to be confined to off- duty hours and to areas away from the nursing home but that apparently Mason was either acting under the Union's express direction or had chosen to flaunt the Union's authority. On February 25, 1969, the Union replied indicating that it had no knowledge of threats by Mason and stating the position of the Union that it would not engage in nor authorize anyone to engage in any violence. There is ample testimony of this record to establish the fact and I find that there was a work stoppage from April 14 to May 2, 1969, and that Ollie Mason was actively engaged in concerted ac- tivities on behalf of the Union, prior to and includ- ing active participation in the work stoppage from April 14 through May 2, and that the Respondent had knowledge of these activities. B. The Refusal To Reinstate Ollie Mason Ollie Mason testified that prior to the work stop- page, he was employed as a washer by the Respond- ent, that at the end of the stoppage he appeared at the convalescent home on May 3, 1969, at 7:30 a.m., with six or seven other individuals who had also been on strike, figuring he was going back to work. The group met briefly at the home with Bratcher who told them to go in. They went COLONIAL MANOR CONVALESCENT & NURSING HOME downstairs and sat in the dining room, no one say- ing a word, according to Mason . Then Mason's sister, Marcella Hawkins, an employee of the Respondent and a supervisor, told them to go up- stairs, that Mrs. Temple would see them upstairs. Mason then talked with Mrs. Temple alone in a room on the second floor. According to Mason, "I come in and she told me to have a chair and I did. I sat down and she told me that they called this meet- ing. She called me in there to tell me that there was not a job for me in the home anymore and I could go home. I turned around and got up and walked out." Jane Adams Temple testified she was employed by the Respondent at the home as its administrator. She reports to the board of directors and the func- tioning of the home is her responsibility. Temple testified that Mason was employed by the Respond- ent on March 17, 1967, as a washman in the laundry where he worked until April 14, 1969, when he commenced picketing the home together with other employees. Temple testified that since the laundry is essen- tial to sanitation in the care of the home's 165 pa- tients, it was imperative to continue this function on April 14, when the stoppage occurred. She as- signed the washman duties to another employee, Mr. McPherson, for performance. According to Temple, on May 2, 1969, Mason appeared with a group of employees and requested to talk with her. Temple, who lives on the premises, indicated she had to take her daughter to high school before meeting with the group. When she returned she went to the lounge where they were gathered. Mason then told her he was returning to work. She told him there was a new washman, "the job had been replaced or he had been replaced in the job." According to Temple, Mason then stated that he had not expected to be reemployed. Temple testified that Mason's job was filled by McPherson who had worked temporarily as washman prior to that time from March 16 to March 24, while Mason was on vacation. At the time of the work stoppage on April 14, McPherson again was assigned to work as washman and continued through May 7, when he resigned. Mrs. Temple stated that when McPherson resigned on May 7 she did not offer the job to Mason but replaced McPherson with Mr. Caffee who then filled the job through July 1969. During the month of July, another employee, James Camper, worked alternately with Caffee as wash- man. Neither Caffee nor Camper currently work as washman as the job is now filled by another em- ployee, Westfall. Mrs. Temple stated that the Respondent has not offered reinstatement to Ollie Mason but that other picketing employees had returned to work after the work stoppage , including Mr. Camper, Mrs. Camp, who had also been in- volved not only as a picket, but as a member of the negotiating team, Mrs. McDaniels, Mr. Crow, Mr. 695 Gilbert, Mrs. Brown, Mrs. Chamberlin, Mrs. Miller, and Mrs. Simmons. Concerning her failure to consider Ollie Mason for the washman job when it was vacated by McPherson on May 7, Mrs. Temple testified that on May 2 when the work stoppage ended McPherson was still employed as the washman . When he resigned on May 7, she discussed with Mrs. Haw- kins, who was McPherson's supervisor, the fact that McPherson was leaving and that the linens needed to be washed. McPherson was going to stay to finish the work that day and discussion was had concerning which employee could fill the job. Ac- cording to Mrs. Temple, when a vacancy occurs the first place the Respondent looks is among the em- ployees actually employed. According to Mrs. Tem- ple, Mrs. Hawkins suggested that Mr. Caffee, who worked under her supervision, could fill the job and he was placed in it . Soon thereafter Mr. Camper was alternating with him. Q. Now on or about May 7, 1969, when McPherson indicated to you that he was quitting, did the name of Mr. Mason in any of your discussions with Mrs. Hawkins, or anyone on that date, did the name of Mr. Mason come up in the course of those conversations about what to do about replacing McPherson? A. No sir. Q. Did it occur to you at all? A. Mr. Mason wasn 't discussed. It simply didn't occur to us. Mrs. Temple stated further that prior to April 14 when the work stoppage occurred, she had had oc- casion to discuss Mr. Mason with members of management and his supervisor. She indicated that there was frequent conflict between Mason and his supervisor, Mr. Myrha, concerning the materials being used in the laundry, the source of purchase, and the care and maintenance of the equipment. According to Mrs. Temple, both Mason and Myhra would stop to talk to her about this conflict from time to time. Mrs. Temple testified that Mr. Mason had a unique job, that in most of the jobs at the home people work in a group and there are people doing the same job. Mr. Mason's job was different because he was under the supervision of Mr. Myhra who had many responsibilities throughout the building. There was no close supervision of lunch hours and coffeebreaks and Mrs. Temple indicated that discussions were had over the hours Mason spent away from the job. Mrs. Temple also testified that around January 1969 Mr. Mason at times in- sisted that laundry be washed in an order other than that required by Mrs. Hawkins who has responsibility for the flow of laundry and that even after discussion with him , Mason did not change his order of washing. Temple stated that she asked Myrha to talk to Mason about his failure to cooperate in the laundry flow and that thereafter there were times when the flow went smoothly and other times when it did not. 696 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Mrs. Temple testified that she had discussed Mason 's unsatisfactory job performance with Mr. Lesser, attorney for the home , and that Lesser had written a letter to Mason and also wrote and talked with union officials about Mason 's conduct, which according to Temple, was interfering with the work of other employees in the building and with the smooth functioning and operation of the nursing home . Mrs. Temple testified further concerning an incident when Temple sent home employees who were suffering with the flu and Mason informed her she could not do that as she was not a physician and that the employees who were sent home would be paid by the nursing home. With respect to the allegedly unsatisfactory per- formance of Mason , at the close of her testimony Mrs. Temple stated directly that when she made the decision on May 2 not to reinstate Mason , she did not consider the trouble she was having with Mason over the flow of laundry or the matters discussed with Lesser , or the charges on Mason filed by the home , but that the decision not to reinstate Mason was based solely on the fact that there was no vacancy for a washman on May 2. Mrs. Temple also stated that when McPherson quit on May 7, 1969, Mason was not considered for the job because she went through the normal procedure of evaluating employees who were then actually employed and who could fill the job, that Mason was not in the employ of the home on May 7 and he was not considered, nor even discussed in connection with the washman vacancy. Mrs. Temple stated that after August 28, 1969, the date on which the Respondent was notified by the Board 's Region 13 that there was merit to the charge concerning Mr. Mason , the Respondent did not offer reinstatement to Mason as a washman, nor did it offer him any other job. On further direct examination , Mrs. Temple testified concerning a conversation on May 16, 1969, which she had with Mr. Criel , labor relations advisor for the Respondent , in which Temple elaborated on a letter she had furnished Criel, ex- plaining her personnel actions relative to Mason and a number of other individuals . According to Temple, at this time she told Criel that Mason had been replaced by McPherson , that McPherson had resigned and been replaced by Caffee and Camper, both on whom had participated in the strike, both of whom did a fine job as washman , adding an air of cooperation to the laundry. She also told Criel that after April 14, a new supervisor (Hawkins) had been placed in charge of the laundry , and that Mason had at an earlier time specifically told Tem- ple he would not take orders from Hawkins who was his sister and whom he had raised . Mrs. Temple stated she told Criel that "we couldn 't have a man assuming duties in a nursing home with this attitude toward supervision in general, and this supervision in particular." C. Discussion and Concluding Findings As indicated in the findings hereinabove , the fact has been established that Mason was an active par- ticipant in the protected activities prior to and in- cluding the period of the work stoppage and the Respondent had knowledge thereof . It is well-set- tled that employees have the right under the Act to engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection and that employees who engage in an economic strike are entitled to reinstatement upon application prior to their permanent replace- ment. The Respondent admits that it did not reinstate Mason but defends on the grounds that Mason did not offer to return to work and in any event Mason 's job had been permanently filled while he was on strike and before the offer , if made, was made . The Respondent argues essentially that Ollie Mason did not make an unconditional offer to return to work at the termination of the strike and that the offer , if any, was vague and equivocal. The Respondent buttresses this position by pointing out that almost all of the employees who returned to work reported or went directly to their respective supervisors concerning their jobs , that Mrs . Temple had not asked or instructed the supervisors to have any returning employees meet with or talk to her, and that , of the 37 or more strikers who were asser- tedly instructed by the Union to return to work, only six or seven asked to see Mrs. Temple first. The Respondent also points out that at most Mason in his testimony said he "figured" he was going back to work and that Mason explained "after the strike was over , we were supposed to go back to work." According to the Respondent , Mason's testimony indicated that he had not told anyone he was there to go to work . However, in her testimony, Mrs. Temple , in discussing what took place when she met with Mason and his group at the home that morning , stated "I believe Mr. Mason said they wanted to talk to me about returning to their jobs." Mrs. Temple then went on to testify that in the course of her conversation with Mason , she ex- plained to him that his job had been filled and that Mason responded that he had not expected` to be reemployed anyway . According to Mrs . Temple, Mason did not then inquire about any other job in the home nor did he request Mrs. Temple to take any action in the case of a later opening in the home on his old job or on some other job. There is uncontradicted testimony by Mason in the record that Mason had talked to Mrs. Hawkins, who was his sister, several times about going back to work . While Mason stated that he talked to her "at that time, that same morning, and afterwards, too," and later appeared to contradict this testimony when he stated that he did not go in and talk to Mrs. Hawkins, but he just went over to the tables and sat down, and that subsequently Mrs. Hawkins came out and told them that Mrs. Temple wanted them upstairs , based on my observation of COLONIAL MANOR CONVALESCENT & NURSING HOME Mason as he testified, and his apparent inability at times to be articulate, I do not find in these incon- sistencies a basis for establishing a lack of credibili- ty, but I am convinced that Mason has difficulty ex- pressing himself clearly. I am persuaded on all the facts and circumstances herein that Mason had made it clear to Mrs. Hawkins before May 2 that he was going to return to work at the end of the strike and I am persuaded from his actions on that morn- ing when he went to the home and sat down, facing Mrs. Hawkins with a mutual understanding of his purpose in being there, that Mrs. Hawkins, in con- sonance with this mutual understanding, arranged to have the group talk to Mrs. Temple and that under these circumstances, it was clear to all that the group including Mason was there to return to work. This is borne out by Mrs. Temple's natural reaction when she informed Mason there was no job for him at the home. I am convinced that Mason made an unequivocal offer to return to work and I so find. The question remaining then is whether, at the time that Mason made his unequivocal offer to return to work to Mrs. Temple, he had been per- manently replaced by McPherson. There was much testimony of.record concerning the replacement of Mason by McPherson. While the question is close, I am convinced that the Respondent established the fact that Mason was permanently replaced. There is insufficient basis in this record for finding other- wise. In any event, when McPherson quit on May 7, just 4 days after Mason was denied reinstatement, the Respondent did not consider Mason for this opening. Mrs. Temple made it clear in her testimony that on May 7 she did not even consider Mason for the opening, "Mr. Mason was not discussed. It simply didn't occur to us." Temple stated that Mason was not considered for the opening on May 7 because she went through the normal procedure of evaluat- ing employees who were then actually employed and who could fill the job and that because Mason was not in the employ of the home on May 7, he was not considered, not even discussed in connec- tion with the washman vacancy which Mason had filled prior to the strike. I find this failure to con- sider Mason for the vacancy on May 7 to be in- herently destructive of Mason's rights as an em- ployee and find that thereby the Respondent vio- lated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act as alleged in the complaint. As stated by the Supreme Court in N.L.R.B. v. Fleetwood Trailer Co., 389 U.S. 375, (1967), "This basic right to jobs cannot depend upon job availability as of the moment when the ap- plications are filed. The right to reinstatement does not depend upon technicalities relating to applica- tion. On the contrary the status of the striker, as an employee, continues until he has obtained `other regular and substantially equivalent employment."' Accepting Mrs. Temple's testimony at face value, on May 7 Mason was denied the opportunity of being considered for the vacancy because the 697 Respondent considered him other than an em- ployee of the home entitled to consideration. Since his status as an employee continued beyond his denial of reinstatement on May 2 he was entitled on May 7 to at least the same consideration and evaluation for the job opening as that accorded to every other employee. The failure of the Respond- ent to accord him this consideration is clearly in- herently destructive of Mason's rights as an em- ployee and accordingly a violation of the Act. The Laidlaw Corporation, 171 NLRB 1366 (1968); N.L.R.B. v. Fleetwood Trailer Co., supra; N.L.R.B. v. Great Dane Trailers, 388 U.S. 26 (1967). While much was made by the Respondent of the alleged unsatisfactory job performance of Mason and of his conduct allegedly obstructing the normal and efficient operation of the home, there is no doubt but that on this record such alleged conduct is substantially interwoven with activity which would appear to be protected by the Act. Since the Respondent clearly indicated that these alleged ac- tivities were not considered by it in the failure on May 7 to consider Mason for the vacancy, I find it unnecessary to reach any findings or conclusions with respect thereto. 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 Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By failing and refusing on May 7, 1969, to consider Ollie Mason for the vacancy in the job of washman as set forth in section III, above, the Respondent discriminated against employees with respect to hire, tenure, and other conditions of em- ployment in order to discourage membership in a labor organization, and did interfere with, restrain, and coerce its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE REMEDY I recommend that Respondent cease and desist from their unfair labor practices, and that they take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifically, I shall recommend that the Respondent offer to Ollie Mason im- mediate and full reinstatement to the position of washman, the vacant position for which the Respondent discriminatorily failed and refused to 698 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD consider him on May 7, 1969, or to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges. In so recommending I am not unmindful of the testimony of record concerning the alleged unsatisfactory na- ture of Mason's employment, bearing in mind the fact that these considerations did not enter into the failure to consider Mason for reinstatement. I further recommend that the Respondent make Mason whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him, by paying to him a sum of money equal to that which he would have been paid by the Respondent absent such discrimination, less net earnings during the said period. The loss of earnings shall be com- puted in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heat- ing Co., 138 NLRB 716. RECOMMENDED ORDER The Respondent, Colonial Manor Convalescent and Nursing Home, a Division of the La Grange Land Corporation, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns , shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Unlawfully discriminating against its em- ployees in regard to their hire, tenure of employ- ment, or any term or condition of employment. (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exer- cise of any right guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action: (a) Offer to Ollie Mason immediate and full reinstatement to his former position as washman or a substantially equivalent position, and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimination against him, in the manner set forth in the section herein entitled "The Remedy." (b) Notify the above-named employee, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Ser- vice Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (c) 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. (d) Post at its place of business in La Grange, Il- linois, copies of the attached notice marked "Ap- pendix."2 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 13, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by them to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.3 2 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 " ' 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 13, 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 After a hearing which was held at Chicago, Illinois, on December 15, 16, and 17, 1969, it was decided that Colonial Manor Convalescent & Nursing Home violated the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by discriminatorily failing to consider Ollie Mason for the washman job vacated on May 7, 1969. WE WILL offer reinstatement to Ollie Mason to the job of washman and pay him for all the wages he lost because of our discriminatory ac- tion. COLONIAL MANOR CONVALESCENT & NURSING HOME, A DIVISION OF THE LA GRANGE LAND CORPORATION (Employer) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) We will notify immediately the above-named in- dividual if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of the right to full reinstatement, upon application after discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the Selective Service COLONIAL MANOR CONVALESCENT & NURSING HOME 699 Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act. 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, 881 U. S. Courthouse and Federal Office Building, 219 S. Dearborn St., Chicago, Il- linois 60604, Telephone 312-353-7570.