Lenkurt Electric Co., Inc.

LENKURT ELECTRIC CO., INC. Lenkurt Electric Co., Inc. and Mildred B. Hoback. Case 20-CA-5001 June 30, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS On April 16, 1969, Trial Examiner Herman Corenman issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices, 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 Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed an answering brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National 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 briefs, and the entire record in this case,' and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,' and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and orders that the Respondent, Lenkurt Electric Co., Inc., San Carlos, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified. Add the following as paragraph 2(b), and reletter the following paragraphs accordingly: "(b) Notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of her right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service 'Respondent has moved to strike the answering brief of the General Counsel on the ground that his brief includes matters not limited to the questions raised in the exceptions Since, in reaching our decision herein, we have only considered those matters which are part of the record and which have been raised by the Respondent's exceptions , we deny the motion. 'We agree with the Trial Examiner 's conclusion that the Respondent's discharge of Hoback violated Sec 8(a)(1) of the Act, but we find it unnecessary to decide whether it also violated Sec. 8(a)(3), as such a further finding would not affect the remedy herein. 259 Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces." TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE HERMAN CORENMAN, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge filed on May 16, 1968, by Mildred B. Hoback, an individual, the General Counsel, for the National Labor Relations Board, issued a complaint on September 19, 1968, against Lenkurt Electric Co., Inc., herein referred to as the Respondent, alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), hereinafter referred to as the Act. An answer filed by the Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing in this matter was held at San Francisco on February 19, 1969, before me. Each party was afforded a full opportunity to be heard, to call, examine and cross-examine witnesses , to argue orally on the record, and to file briefs which have been carefully considered. The question at issue is whether the Respondent's termination of Mildred B. Hoback's employment on April 3, 1968, upon her refusal to cross a picket line to work at the Respondent's plant, violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. Upon the entire record, including briefs of the parties, and my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The pleadings establish that the Respondent is a Delaware corporation with a place of business at San Carlos, California, where it is engaged in the manufacture of electronic products. During the past year, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, sold and shipped from the State of California products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside California, and received goods and materials valued in excess of $10,000 from points outside California. It is admitted that the Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Preliminary Statement of Facts Mildred B. Hoback had been employed by the Respondent since June 1966, first as a Xerox operator until October 1967, and thereafter as an Itek operator.' Her immediate supervisor was George Pollock, supervisor of press production . She was one of approximately 1,150 employees in the Respondent 's plant at San Carlos, California, who were unrepresented by any labor organization. On April 1, 1968, the IBEW, a labor organization which represented approximately 2,650 hourly rated employees in the plant, called a strike to enforce renewal 'According to the testimony of Personnel Manager Hill , an Itek machine takes a typed sheet or page of anything and will make a working piece for a printing machine from which one will copy or punt, much like a duplicator. 177 NLRB No. 87 260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD contract demands and placed pickets at all of the gates to the plant. In contemplation of the April 1 strike the Respondent, on March 29, issued a memo to all unrepresented salaried employees as follows: As you all know, the company is in labor negotiations with the IBEW. Regardless of the outcome of these negotiations the company will be open for operations on Monday, April 1, and thereafter all employees will be expected to attend work as usual. Mrs. Hoback rode to work with her husband on the morning of April 1, 1968, intending to start work at 8 a.m., but on seeing the plant was being picketed , made no attempt to enter the plant and returned home. Mrs. Hoback testified that she "refused to cross the picket line" because she "was in sympathy with the strikers and fearful of bodily harm." On arriving home, Mrs. Hoback phoned her supervisor, Mr. Pollack, between 9 and 10 a.m. and told him she "couldn't come in because of the picket line." She also spoke to Mr. Pollack's superior, Ray Facciano, and told him, too, that she "couldn't come in" because she "wouldn't cross the picket line." Facciano replied, "Yes, George [Pollack] and I have already talked about it." Mrs. Hoback drove to the plant about 7:45 a.m. the next morning, April 2, and again refused to cross the picket lines outside the plant because, as she testified, "I was in sympathy with the strikers and fearful of bodily harm." On the afternoon of April 2, she received a telegram from the Respondent signed by Mr. Hill reading as follows: Since you are a salaried employee and not represented by the union contract, your reason for not coming to work is not acceptable. If you fail to report for work by Wednesday, April 3, 1968, you will be considered to have voluntarily terminated. After receiving the aforesaid telegram, Mrs. Hoback phoned Mr. Facciano, manager of the publications production department, on the afternoon of April 2. Mr. Facciano reread the telegram to Mrs. Hoback. When, upon inquiry by Mrs. Hoback, Mr. Facciano told her he thought the pickets would still be there the following day, Mrs. Hoback replied that she would report as usual the next morning, April 3, and would come in to work if the pickets were gone. Later on April 2, the Respondent received the following telegram from Mrs. Hoback: Re yours this date. Stop. Have made efforts to report for work. However, found pickets blocking entrance Stop. Am fearful of bodily harm to self and family or property damage if cross. Mrs. Hoback went to the Respondent's plant site on the morning of April 3 and, again observing that it was being picketed, did not cross the picket line. Mrs. Hoback testified again that her refusal to cross the picket line was because she was in sympathy with the strikers and fearful of bodily harm . She returned to the plant site on the mornings of April 4 and 5 and again would not cross the picket line to work for the same reasons testified to by her for her refusal to cross the picket line on April 1, 2, and 3. On the afternoon of April 5, Mrs. Hoback received the following telegram from the Respondent , signed by Personnel Manager Hill: "Your Lenkurt employment has been terminated effective 4-3-68 by reason of your failure to report to work without good cause." B. Respondent's Contention as to Reason for Discharging Mrs. Hoback Mr. Stephen S. Hill, personnel manager, testified that on April 1 he learned by memo from Mr. Acton, manager of publications and office services, that Mrs. Hoback had not come to work.' Mr. Hill contacted Mr. Acton and instructed him that "should she [Mrs. Hoback] not come to work as a result of [not] crossing the picket line, that we should terminate her in three days." The Respondent contends that Hoback was temporarily replaced by Kathy Scambia on April 1 through 3, and was permanently replaced by Scambia on April 4 when Hoback did not report for work by April 3, the deadline set in the Respondent's April 2 telegram to Hoback notifying her that if she failed to report for work by Wednesday, April 3, she would "be considered to have voluntarily terminated." Mr. Hill's testimony concerning the replacement is as follows: That Mrs. Hoback was an Itek operator in the Press Department; that through the use of the Itek machine a great amount of published material is accomplished, as it is a much cheaper method of making plates; and 60 percent of the flow of work through the press department is dependent at one stage or another on the Itek machine. When Mrs. Hoback did not come to work on April 1, Kathy Scambia, who had had Itek experience, and was then a trainee in the camera department, was transferred to take Hoback's place on the Itek machine during her absence on April 1, 2, and 3. Hill testified that Scambia was permanently reassigned to the Itek machine effective April 4. Scambia remained on the Itek machine April 4 and 5, but on the following Monday, April 8, she was taken off the Itek machine and transferred for the duration of the strike to the factory area where her skills were needed to perform production work customarily done by union members. In the meanwhile, the Itek machine work was rotated among several other employees in the press department. Upon the termination of the strike, May 16, 1968, Scambia was returned to the Itek machine where she still remained at the time of the hearing in this matter. Mr. Hill further testified that it was not necessary to fill the vacancy in the camera department occasioned by Scambia's transfer to Hoback's job because Scambia had been only a trainee in the camera department. C. Discussion of Issues and Conclusions The sole issue involved is whether Respondent violated' Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by discharging Hoback, because she refused to cross the picket line and come to work during an economic strike called by the IBEW. I find that Hoback's refusal to cross the picket line to come to work constituted the exercise of concerted activity within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act.' Hoback testified at the hearing that her refusal to cross the picket line was motivated by two considerations, namely: (1) sympathy with the strikers and (2) fear of bodily harm. I have noted that Hoback's April 2 telegram to the Respondent in reply to Respondent's April 2 telegram seeks to justify her refusal to cross the picket line on the ground that "pickets were blocking the entrance" and she was "fearful of bodily harm to self and family or property damage if [she] crossed." It is reasonable to conclude, and I find, that Hoback's April 2 reply to Respondent's April 2 telegram constituted, in the main, an endeavor by her to 'The April I memo from Acton to Hill reported concerning Mrs. Hoback: "In the case of M. Hoback, she phoned in at 9 :05 AM stating she was not reporting because of the picket line " 'Sec 7 Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, LENKURT ELECTRIC CO., INC. 261 proffer an excuse which she hoped would be palatable to the Respondent and perhaps forestall her threatened discharge inasmuch as the Respondent's April 2 telegram serviced notice on her that her refusal to cross the picket line was an unacceptable reason for not coming to work because, according to the telegram, "You are a salaried employee and not represented by the union contract." It is clear from the undisputed evidence produced at the hearing by the Respondent that there was no picket line violence. Additionally, Hoback was the only one of approximately 1,150 nonrepresented salaried employees who refused to cross the picket line. Whatever fragments of fear Hoback may have entertained, I am satisfied that they were minimal and did not control her action in refusing to cross the picket line. I am convinced, and I find, that Hoback's refusal to cross the picket line was in the main based on her sympathies with the union strike.' It is reasonable to conclude that the Respondent entertained the opinion, based on its observations at the strike scene, that there was no warrant to Hoback's April 2 telegraphic excuse that she was "fearful of bodily harm to self and family or property damage "if she crossed" the picket line. I am satisfied, and I find, upon the basis of the Respondent's April 2 and 5 telegrams to Hoback that the Respondent considered Hoback's refusal to cross the picket line as an act of insubordination and unacceptable, since, as the April 2 telegram stated, she was a salaried employee not in the unit represented by the IBEW, and, as stated in Respondent's April 5 telegram, she was terminated because of her failure to report to work without good cause. I am convinced, and I find, that Respondent discharged Hoback in reprisal for her conduct in honoring the picket line which the Respondent believed was none of Hoback' s business. It is well established by Board and Court precedent that nonrepresented employees are engaging in protected, concerted activity in honoring a picket line at their employer's own establishment. In refusing to cross the picket line at her place of employment and come to work, Hoback was assisting the labor organization then on strike. It did not matter, as the Respondent erroneously believed, that Hoback was not a member of the bargaining unit represented by the IBEW. Difco Laboratories, Inc., 172 NLRB No. 235. Southern Greyhound Lines, Division of Greyhound Lines, Inc., 169 NLRB No. 148; Cooper Thermometer, 154 NLRB 502; Canada Dry Corporation, 154 NLRB 1763; Texas Foundries, Inc., 101 NLRB 1642, 1681; N.L.R.B. v. City Yellow Cab Co., 344 F.2d 575 (C.A. 6); John S. Swift Co., 124 NLRB 394, 397, enfd. 277 F.2d 641 (C.A. 7); N.L.R.B. v. Stepp's Friendly Ford, 338 F.2d 833 (C.A. 9); N.L.R.B. v. West Coast Casket Company, Inc., 205 F.2d 902, 908 (C.A. 9). See also Truckdriver's Union Local join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment in section 8(a)(3) 'It should be noted that in proceedings before the State of California, Department of Employment, wherein Mrs. Hoback sought unemployment insurance, she represented to that state agency that she had "informed management that my husband was an international representative of the Brotherhood of Railway and Airline Clerks and this made my reporting for work impossible since he is well aware of the dangers and other reasons." (Emphasis supplied ) No. 413, Teamsters, et a! v. N.L.R.B. ]Brown Transport Corp.], 334 F.2d 539, 542, 543 (C.A.D.C.), cert. denied 379 U.S. 916. Relying on N.L.R.B. v. Rockaway News Supply Company, Inc., 197 F.2d 111 (C.A. 2), affd, 345 U.S. 71, Redwing Carriers, Inc., 137 NLRB 1545, enfd. sub nom Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local Union No. 79 v. N.L.R.B., 325 F.2d 1011 (C.A.D.C.), cert. denied 377 U.S. 905, and L.G. Everist Inc., 142 NLRB 193, enforcement denied 334 F.2d 312 (C.A. 8), the Respondent argues that it was privileged to discharge Hoback in order to replace her with Kathy Scambia in the efficient operation of its business. Subsequent to the aforesaid decisions relied upon by the Respondent, the Board, in adopting the Trial Examiner's decision in Southern Greyhound Lines, supra, and Difco Laboratories, Inc., supra, agreed with each of the Trial Examiners that the Redwing Carriers rule was not to be applied in cases, such as this one, where the employee is honoring a picket line at the employer's own establishment. Attention is directed to the remarks made by the Trial Examiner in Southern Greyhound Lines, supra, where she pointed out with Board approval that Redwing, Rockaway, and Everist: involved the discharge of drivers who in the course of making deliveries, refused to cross the picket lines at the premises of employers other than their own. In those cases, the employees had not refused to perform all their duties for their employer. They had even transported materials to the situs of the struck employer, but had refused to perform any part of their duties which would require them to cross the picket line. In such a situation an employer may find it necessary to discharge the employee who refuses to cross the picket line in order to replace him immediately or soon thereafter with someone who will perform all the employee' s duties and thereby enable the employee to continue operating his business. This, the Board held, the employer may lawfully do where the need to continue to operate his business overrides in importance the protected right of an employee to assist a labor organization by refusing to cross the other employer's picket line. Indeed, the Court of Appeals in N.L.R.B. v Rockaway News, supra, in finding no violation in the discharge of a driver who refused to cross a picket line at another employer's establishment condemned the driver's action as an unprotected partial strike, the Court holding that the employee was "unilaterally dictating the terms of his employment which it is well settled he may not do." And the Supreme Court in Rockaway, supra, while not adopting the partial strike rationale of the Court of Appeals, concluded nevertheless that the employee's refusal to cross the picket line was unprotected because it violated a no-strike clause in the collective-bargaining agreement governing his working conditions. Although the Board has not departed from the general rule announced by it in Redwing Carriers, supra, that it will not reach a conclusion only on the basis of the precise words - "replacement or discharge" - used by the employer in Redwing Carrier type cases, nevertheless, in subsequent decisions involving one or more employees' refusal to cross a picket line at another employer's establishment, the Board has carefully weighed all of the aspects to determine whether the discharge is a reprisal against the employee or whether "the employer's need to replace the employee is such as clearly to out weigh the employee's right to engage in protected activity." 262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In Swain and Morris Construction Co., 168 NLRB No. 147, Thurston Motor Lines, Inc., 166 NLRB No. 101, and Overnite Transportation Co., 154 NLRB 1271, enfd. sub nom . Truck Drivers Local 728 I.B.T. v. N.L.R.B., 364 F.2d 682 (C.A.D.C.), the Board concluded that the Respondent had not met its burden to show that the employees' discharge was essential to fulfill an overriding need in the operation of its business. In Overnite Transportation Co., supra, in finding that the employer violated the Act in discharging a truckdriver who refused to cross another employer 's picket line, the Board, among other things, based its finding of violation on the fact that the employer, by terminating the driver for disobeying "direct orders" to cross the picket line, equated the driver's refusal to cross the picket line with an act of insubordination showing little or no regard for the countervailing employee rights that were examined and balanced in Redwing. In like manner, it is reasonable to conclude that the Respondent's action in the instant case, in terminating Hoback, was motivated by the Respondent's conclusion clearly expressed in its April 2 and 5 telegrams that Hoback's refusal to cross the picket line was "without good cause" and inferentially insubordinate. Additionally, I find that on the date of her discharge, Hoback had not been permanently replaced. Kathy Scambia, her replacement, remained on Hoback's machine only from April 1 to 5; thereafter until the end of the strike Scambia worked on hourly rated production work in the unit represented by the IBEW. In the meanwhile, the Itek machine was operated by a number of different employees in the Press Department . It was only after the strike was terminated on May 16 that Kathy Scambia was permanently placed on the Itek machine. See Lam- Western, Inc., 170 NLRB No. 186; Marydale Products, 133 NLRB 1232 , enfd . 311 F.2d 890 (C.A. 5). Hoback having been previously discharged effective April 3, it would have been futile for her to offer to return at the strike's end. Southern Greyhound Lines , 169 NLRB No. 148 . She was entitled to reinstatement with the strike's termination . N.L.R.B. v. Cowell Portland Cement Co., 148 F.2d 237, 245 (C.A. 9); Idaho Potato Growers v. N.L.R.B., 144 F.2d 295, 304-305 (C.A. 9). But, as I have pointed out earlier in this decision, the Board has declined to extend the Redwing criteria to situations where the employee honors a picket line at the employee's own place of work . See Southern Greyhound Lines and Difco Laboratories, Inc., supra. In those two cases, the Board did not deviate from long standing Board and Court precedent, and in each case found that the discharge of the employee for honoring the picket line at his own place of work violated the Act. The Board's reason for viewing the matter differently where the employee refuses to cross a picket line at his own place of work was stated in Cooper Thermometer, 154 NLRB 502, as follows: In such a situation [referring to Redwing] the employee interest in the primary labor dispute is clearly less than in one, where as here, the same employer and fellow employees are involved and where the possibility is more proximate that improved conditions for the production employees might lead to a reciprocal effect effect on the office employees ' own conditions." The Board cited in support of its statement Peter Cailler Kohler Swiss Chocolates Company, Inc., 130 F .2d 503, 505 (C.A. 2).' Concluding, therefore, that this case should be decided on long standing Board and Court precedent reasserted in Southern Greyhound Lines and Difco Laboratories, Inc., supra, I find that Mrs. Hoback, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, was discharged for refusing to cross the IBEW picket line. The Respondent thereby discriminated with respect to her tenure of employment because she assisted the IBEW by honoring their picket line and because she engaged in concerted activity with the striking employees for their mutual aid and protection. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By discharging Mildred B . Hoback because she engaged in the protected activity of assisting a labor organization, Respondent has discriminated with respect to her tenure of employment , has interfered with, restrained, and coerced her in the exercise of her rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. 2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. Respondent will be required to offer Mildred B. Hoback reinstatement to her old or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, dismissing, if necessary, anyone who may have been hired to replace her, and to make her whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered by reason of her unlawful discharge. Since it appears that Hoback would not have returned to work prior to the termination of the strike on May 16, 1968, even if she had not been discharged, Respondent will be required to make her whole for her loss of earnings by payment to her of the salary which she would normally have earned on and after May 16, 1968, to the date Respondent offers her reinstatement, less her net earnings during that period. The backpay shall be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289, and shall include an allowance for interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum to be computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, it is hereby ordered that Respondent, Lenkurt 'Judge Learned Hand, speaking for the court in Peter Caller Kohler, supra, said. When all the other workmen in a shop make common cause with a fellow workmen over his separate grievance and go out on strike in his support, they engage in a "concerted activity" for "mutual aid or protection," although the aggrieved workman is the only one of them who has any immediate stake in the outcome . The rest know that by their action each one of them assures himself, in case his turn ever comes, of the support of the one whom they are all then helping , and the solidarity so established is "mutual aid" in the most literal sense, as nobody doubts." LENKURT ELECTRIC CO., INC. Electric Co., Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging or refusing to reinstate any employee because he has assisted a labor organization by refusing to cross a lawful picket line at his place of work. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Mildred B. Hoback immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the lawful discharge and refusal to reinstate her, in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll and other records helpful to analyze and determine the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (c) Post at its place of business at San Carlos, California, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, on forms to be provided by the Regional Director for Region 20 of the Board, shall, after being signed by an authorized representative of Respondent , be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, where notices to employees are customarily posted . Respondent shall take reasonable steps to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps it has taken to comply herewith.' `In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." '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 20, in writing, within 10 dayes from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES 263 Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discharge or refuse to reinstate any employee for refusing to cross a picket line to come to work during a lawful strike at our plant. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce any employee in the exercise of his right, guaranteed under the National Labor Relations Act, to assist a labor organization. WE WILL offer to Mildred B. Hoback immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed by her, and make her whole for any loss of pay which she may have suffered by reason of her discharge. LENKURT ELECTRIC CO., INC. (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) Note: Notify Mildred B. Hoback if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of her right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 13050 Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36047, San Francisco, California 94102 , Telephone 556-0335.