The Cameron Co.

430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Cameron Company and Local 545, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO. Case 23-CA-3868 September 29, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND KENNEDY On June 29, 1971, Trial Examiner Myron S. Waks issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a sup- porting brief and the Acting 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, the briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.2 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Respondent, The Cameron Company, Houston, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order. i We hereby correct the following inadvertent errors in the Trial Examiner's Decision which in no way affect his Decision nor our adoption thereof . In the first sentence of paragraph 2 of sec. III, 1, the Trial Examiner states that Mott was first employed by Respondent in October 1968, when in fact the evidence shows that she was originally hired in October 1969. In the third sentence of paragraph 1 of sec. III, 3, the Trial Examiner finds that Benton admittedly did not discuss the two alleged airline complaints with Mott. As the record shows, and the Trial Examiner correctly found in the fourth sentence of the third paragraph of sec III, 2, Benton testified that he did talk to Mott about the two purported airline complaints. However, Benton further stated that he never specifically warned Mott about doing her job nor took any other action besides communicating the complaints to her 2 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Trial Examiner It is the Board's established policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A 3) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his fi.sdings. As the record and briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties, Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MYRON S. WAKs, Trial Examiner: This case was tried at Houston, Texas, on April 27, 1971, pursuant to charges filed on January 26, 1971, and a complaint issued on March 5, 1971, alleging that Respondent discharged Mary Mott in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.' Respondent admitted certain allegations of the complaint but denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. Upon the entire record in this case, including my observation of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by the parties, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The pleadings establish and I find that Respondent, a Texas corporation having its principal office in Houston, Texas, where it is engaged in the business of furnishing building maintenance services to other enterprises, during the year preceding issuance of the complaint purchased and received goods in excess of $50,000 from outside the State of Texas. Upon these admitted facts, I find that the Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED I find that Local 545, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, which is an organization in which employees participate and exists for the purpose of dealing with employers in respect to rates of pay, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Mott s Union Activity, the Company's Response and Mott's Discharge The Company has contracts to provide janitorial services at Houston International Airport. These contracts are with the city for certain public areas of the airport, and with the airlines to maintain their areas. Mott was first employed by the Company in October 1968 and was assigned to performing cleaning work for the airlines at terminal A. Her employment with Cameron continued until sometime in June 1970. Mott who at that time was working the night shift from 10:30 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. was forced to leave her job because of transportation i General Counsel amended the complaint at the start of the hearing to delete the allegation that certain conduct set forth in par . 7 of the complaint constituted violations of Sec 8(a)(l) of the Act in view of the informal settlement agreement entered into with Respondent which inter aba covered such conduct and had not been set aside. 193 NLRB No. 67 THE CAMERON COMPANY difficulties. Two weeks later Mott contacted the Company and spoke with Company Supervisor Robert Castille and learned there was an opening on the evening shift which worked between 2:30 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. Mott accepted the job and continued to work on that shift until her discharge on January 24, 1971. When Mott returned to work in June 1970, she was told by both Castille and Heyse, the Company's general manager for airport operations, that they were happy to have her back. Also, during the early part of the summer of 1970 she was complimented for the work she performed for Eastern Airlines by James Benton, the assistant manager for Cameron at the airport. At that time Benton told Mott that it was because of her good work that Eastern had not canceled its service contract with the Company. Sometime during the summer of 1970 the work assign- ments of the Cameron employees providing services for the airlines was changed. Apparently while Cameron had previously assigned one employee to clean each airline (Mott had been assigned to Eastern), it now assigned one employee to do just policing work with no heavy cleaning for two airlines on the evening shift. Mott was assigned to work for Eastern and Texas International, and employee Linda Frankinburger was assigned to Continental and National Airlines; these were all located in terminal A. Mott's job, briefly described, was to police the ticket counter areas, the satellites or flight stations (where the passengers gathered before boarding or leaving the aircraft), the long corridor between the ticket counter and the flight stations, and the operations area where the airline employees who serviced the planes were stationed. Frankinburger performed the same duties for Continental and National Airlines. In addition, the two employees were required to clean the Hertz car rental booth, the gift shop, and Continental's VIP room together. In performing their jobs, Mott and Frankinburger were expected to make two rounds of the airline stations-one round before their dinner break and one round following it. Each of the employees was permitted to schedule the order in which they performed their work; the only requirement being that they clean the Continental VIP lounge at 9 p.m. In November 1970, Assistant Manager Benton became Mott's immediate supervisor; Benton relieved Robert Castille who was moved to the day shift. Starting in July or August 1970 the Union began organizing the Company's employees. The first two employees who assisted Union Representative Lucio in the organizing campaign were employees Vasquez and Mott; other employees who were active on behalf of the Union included Alanzo Villarreal and Linda Frankinburger. Mott spoke to employees on breaktime in favor of the Union and 2 Respondent's objection at the hearing to the admissibility of this and other evidence relating to conduct covered by the prior settlement agreement, still outstanding, was overruled The Board may and will consider conduct which is the subject matter of an outstanding settlement agreement for purposes of considering a respondent 's motivation or animus concerning alleged unlawful conduct which is not covered by the settlement . See Cloverleaf Cold Storage Co, 160 NLRB 1484, Steve's Sash & Door Co, v N L R B, 401 F 2d 676 (C A 5) See also Joseph's Landscaping Service, 154 NLRB 1384, enfd 389 F 2d 271 (C A. 9) 3 Frankinburger testified as a rebuttal witness for the General Counsel. Benton denied that he had any conversation about the meeting to be held at Denny's with any employee, other than possibly Mary Bryant, who told 431 signed a union authorization card in mid-August. In early November, Mott arranged for a meeting between Cameron employees and the Union on a Wednesday evening at Dobb's House, a coffee shop at terminal A. At this meeting employees Mott, Frankinburger, Villarreal, and one other employee met with Lucio and another union representative. It was agreed at this time that a meeting of Cameron employees and the Union would be held the following Saturday morning at Denny's, a restaurant about 5 miles from the airport. Thereafter, Mott distributed notices advising the employees of the meeting. Prior to the meeting at Denny's, Assistant Manager Benton engaged Frankinburger in a conversation about the Union when she walked into the office to check out.2 Frankinburger credibly testified that at this meeting (at which only she and Benton were present), she was asked by Benton if the employees had held a meeting with the Union at Dobb's House, if they were supposed to meet at Denny's, and if she, Frankinburger were going to attend the meeting. Frankinburger told Benton that her daughter was ill and she did not know whether she would attend the meeting. Benton told Frankinburger that he was telling her this because he knew that she had to work and that Mary Mott had a husband who was working and could support her. Benton then stated that he did not need Mott, that he knew she was involved in the Union, and while making this statement erased Mott's name from the schedule board behind him.3 That same night Mott received a call from Frankinburger who told her that Benton indicated employees attending the meeting at Denny's would be discharged.4 The following morning Mott arrived at Denny's Restau- rant for the planned meeting. Heyse had arrived at Denny's earlier along with his two sons and Bevin Harvey, the general manager of the Company and Heyse's supervisor. Heyse and Harvey had also been at Denny's the previous morning. Benton had heard a rumor about what he gathered was to be a union organizing meeting with Cameron employees. According to Heyse, he was there to see what was "transpiring." More specifically, I find that Heyse was there to learn which of his employees attended the meeting. Heyse saw three men drive up in a car with a New York license plate. Later he observed one company employee come into the restaurant, talk to these men, and leave within a few seconds; he also passed former employee Alanzo Villarreal as he was coming into the restaurant and observed him talking to the three men. He and Harvey at this time walked out of the restaurant to the parking lot and stood there talking. About this time Mary Mott arrived and drove up to Heyse. Mott asked Heyse if she was terminated; Heyse said "no, not that he knew of." Mott him of it, he further denied that he ever threatened employees about the Union or talked to employees other than to indicate when he was approached by them that it was their decision and to caution them about union activity on company time I have credited Frankinburger's testimony Frankinburger was still in the employ of Respondent and her experience on the witness stand in her employer's presence was obviously not an easy one Frankmburger who was obviously under great stress when testifying impressed me as a more honest witness than Benton. 4 I have not relied on Mott's testimony concerning this telephone call to the extent it concerned the truth that Benton made such a statement to Frankinburger but have relied on it only to the extent that it explains Mott's exchange with Heyse the following day. 432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD then parked and proceeded into the restaurant; she observed Heyse and Harvey leaving about 15 minutes after her arrival. The following evening when Mott reported for work she found that her timecard had been removed from its slot. She then asked Relief Supervisor Mike Waring5 if she had been fired. Waring said he would check and made a telephone call during which he asked if Mott had been terminated . Waring during the call picked up Mott's timecard which she observed had a "big red question mark" by her name. Waring when he completed his call told Mott to go to work. That evening or the following evening about 9:30 p.m. Mott encountered Benton as she was coming down the Texas International hallway after cleaning the Continental VIP room. Benton asked Mott what the Union promised the workers and stated that "a lot of people had been fired because they tried to get the union in." Benton also told Mott that Heyse had left it to him whether she stayed on the payroll and that if she tried "to get the Union in" she would be discharged .6 Mott continued to be active on behalf of the Union until her discharge. On Monday, January 18, 1971, Mott injured her stomach while working. She reported this to Schwartz, supervisor of trainees ; Schwartz told Mott to return to work if she felt able to do so. On Wednesday, Mott "almost fainted" and could not continue her work; Mott spoke to Benton and received permission to go home. At that time Mott told Benton if she was feeling better she would return to work the next day. When Mott reported for work on Thursday she was told by Benton to stay behind while the others went to work; Benton told Mott she would have to be examined and get a doctor's release for the Company's protection. When Mott "kiddingly" asked Benton if that meant she was discharged, he replied that it did not. Mott returned home and on Friday went to the Company's doctor who told her there was a possible muscle strain but that she could return to work. In the meantime , on January 21, 1971, the Thursday preceding the discharge of Mott, Respondent pursuant to a settlement agreement of an earlier charge which was approved on January 15, 1971, started to post notices in compliance with the agreement. The notices covered charged 8(a)(l) conduct, the assurance that employees would not be discharged because of union activity, and the offer of reinstatement to Alanzo Villarreal (not accepted by Villarreal) plus payment for loss of wages to Villarreal which he may have suffered because of his charged unlawful discharge. On the following day, Heyse discussed Mott's status with Benton. Heyse solicited Benton's opinion regarding the retention of Mott and according to Benton he told Heyse that Mott's work was "down" and that she should be terminated. According to 5 The facts set forth concerning this exchange are based on Mott's credited testimony which was undisputed, Waring was not called to testify 6 The substance of the exchange set forth is based on the credited testimony of Mott, who impressed me as a more reliable witness than Benton . Moreover, Benton's version of the conversation strains credulity According to Benton, Mott had stopped him and stated that her husband did not believe in unions, that unions were only out for poor people's money, and that she would not participate in union activity Yet on cross- examination , Benton testified that he knew Mott was "talking for the Union," and learned this "about the time she stopped me in Continental, Eastern , Texas International 's concourse" Furthermore, it is highly Heyse he took the matter under advisement and on Sunday, January 24, 1971, reached the decision to discharge Mott. According to Heyse, to save Mott the trip to the airport he then called Castille, who was the supervisor on duty at the airport and asked him to call Mott at home and relate to her his discharge decision. Heyse testified that he told Castille to tell Mott the reason for her discharge was that over a period of time the Company had received complaints from the airlines. He instructed Castille to tell Mott that if she had any questions she was to speak to him. Mott who was scheduled to work on Sunday, January 24 (her days off normally were Friday and Saturday) in fact received a telephone call from Castille before she left for work and was informed that she was discharged. Mott's testimony regarding her exchange with Castille is undisputed.? Castille told Mott that he was calling on the instructions of Heyse, that she was not to go to work that day, and that she was terminated. When Mott asked why she had been terminated, Castille said there had been complaints from Eastern that she had not been performing her work properly. Mott remonstrated with Castille, stating that she believed there was more involved, referring to rumors that Benton was going to discharge higher paid employees and hire new employees for less money, that Benton was the one really behind the whole thing and that she would talk to him. Castille assured Mott that all the orders came from Heyse and that if she wanted a more detailed explanation about her discharge she could contact Heyse. Mott did not contact Heyse for a further explanation of the reason for her discharge and on January 26, 1971, the charge in the instant proceeding was filed. B. Respondent's Defenses Respondent, whose only stated reason to Mott for her discharge was the receipt of complaints from Eastern Airlines, took the position at the hearing that Mott's discharge resulted from complaints received from other sources as well as the airlines. Thus, Heyse testified that "it was a culmination over a period of time of reports from my supervisors, reports in the log about complaints delivered to us either by the airlines or by supervisors or other employees employed by the Cameron Company at the airport." 8 In order to evaluate the defense of Respondent it is necessary to consider the frequency of complaints generally received by Cameron, the way in which they are treated and the course of action ordinarily followed with regard to the employees involved. According to Benton he receives complaints daily, that it is the nature of the business; generally these complaints came from airlines and others are received from supervisors about work left undone on improbable that Mott who earlier attended the meeting at Denny's at which she had seen Heyse, would stop Benton to tell him, contrary to what she realized was the known fact, that she would not participate in union activity 7 Castille was not called as a witness by Respondent; Mott's version of this exchange is consistent with Heyse's testimony as to the instructions he gave Castille regarding the call he was to make to Mott 8 According to Heyse, Mott's injury played no part in his discharge decision except to the extent he was assured that Mott could return to work and he was not terminating an employee who was medically incapable of working because of an injury received on the job THE CAMERON COMPANY the previous shifts. As to the latter Benton testified, for example, that he receives complaints almost daily from the supervisor of the day shift about work left undone by the night shift. Benton further testified that the shift supervisors also enter complaints in the logbook which the Company maintains.9 According to Benton he enters complaints in the log only if they are "serious" or "major" complaints. Upon receipt of complaints they are generally investigated; many turn out not to be valid complaints and where the complaint is valid the employee who is responsible is usually told of it. According to the testimony of both Sue Rodin, the night supervisor and Dorothy Clifton, the day supervisor, an employee whose work is not satisfactory is warned, given an opportunity to improve, and only if the employee fails to improve is he or she terminated. It is undisputed that Mott was never warned before her discharge that her work was unsatisfactory or that her job was in jeopardy. Regarding the Eastern Airline complaints allegedly received about Mott, the declared reason for her discharge, Respondent adduced only the vague testimony of Benton regarding one telephone call from somebody at Eastern, whom he could not identify, and which he placed as occurring in December 1970. The Eastern complaint purportedly concerned Eastern areas which were badly in need of cleaning while Mott was on duty. The only other airline complaint attested to by Benton was a call from Texas International and allegedly concerned Mott talking too much with airline personnel. According to Benton these were the only airlines complaints he received about Mott and the only two occasions on which he had talked to Mott about complaints. Benton did not consider either of these serious enough to log them nor did he even claim to have issued any kind of warning to Mott on these occasions. Mott, whom I found a more credible witness than Benton denied that she was ever told by Benton about an Eastern complaint or any other airline complaint. Furthermore, I find that Benton, contrary to his testimony, never received these complaints. First, Benton's description of the complaint received from Eastern, that the area looked like a "hog pen" and that his investigation disclosed this to be the case, I find incredible in view of his further testimony that he did not reprimand Mott about the situation, and further while Benton purports to have appraised the situation as one of the worst he had seen, he admittedly did not log the incident, as he does when there is a major complaint. The foregoing taken together with Benton's inability to identify the person making the complaint, his uncertainty as to when the complaint was received, and Mott's credible 9 The Company did not put the logbook in evidence 10 As regards Mott's work for Eastern I note the credible testimony of Hope Davenport, Eastern's ground hostess for customer service, that Mott did an exceptionally good job for Eastern and that she had told this to Cameron supervisors several times and to Benton as late as January 1971 Hope Davenport as ground hostess covered all Eastern areas, it was part of her job to make certain the areas were clean and it was she who originated most airline complaints about Cameron employees Davenport who worked from 10 30 a in to 7 p in (or later if needed) had made complaints about other Cameron employees but she had no occasion to complain about Mott's work As she told Benton, she could always count on Mott's cooperation in an emergency situation as well as Mott's performing a good job at her regular tasks ii Mott admitted that at timeti she had not completed all the work 433 testimony that Benton never spoke to her about the matter leads me to conclude that the incident did not occur.10 Similarly, I do not credit Benton's testimony that he had received a complaint from Texas International. In this instance too Benton's testimony was vague as to the Ilentity of the complainant or when it occurred; further- more Benton did not record it in the log and Mott credibly denied that she was ever told by Cameron that she was talking too much. Sue Rodin, the night supervisor for Cameron, was the principal witness for the Respondent in cataloging complaints about Mott's work. According to Rodin she did not like to log complaints against employees because it caused hard feelings but generally spoke to the employee's supervisor. Rodin's testimony was that Mott frequently left work undone; according to Rodin this started in July or August.ii Rodin at first testified that she made complaints to Benton at least five or six times and probably more before she started to enter them in the logbook, that this would be before the end of August; Rodin then testified the first bad complaint she logged following complaints to Benton was in October; later she testified that her complaints to Benton were toward the end of the year 1970, within the last 3 months "when we started finding, when I started finding so much being left undone." Rodin further testified that she complained to Benton several times after she started writing in the logbook. According to Rodin she also complained several times about Mott when she was talking to Heyse. Apart from Rodin's inconsistent testimo- ny as to when and how often she had complained to Benton, her testimony is at odds with that of Benton, himself. In the first place Benton testified that prior to his becoming Mott's immediate supervisor in November 1970 he was not familiar with Mott's work nor had he received any complaints about Mott. Furthermore, according to Benton he had received just two or three complaints from Rodin about work Mott had left undone. He admittedly never spoke to Mott about them. Furthermore, Benton's attitude toward complaints from supervisors regarding the work of employees on previous shifts reflects that this was a daily occurrence and one which he apparently did not take as serious. In any event Rodin herself testified that she had stopped complaining to Benton or making entries in the log at the end of December 1970. C. Concluding Findings Based on the facts set forth above I conclude that the reasons advanced by Respondent for Mott's discharge were pretextual. In the first place the reason told Mott at the time during her second round of the airlines She had been instructed to clean the Continental VIP room at 9 o'clock and even Rodin testified that following this there would be time for Mott to cover only one other area Mott had been instructed by Benton to make certain that airlines operations was covered before she left It is quite possible therefore that some of the areas covered by Mott would not have been policed between 9 p in and II p in when Rodin or her people arrived to perform their work. There is the further consideration, as noted by Supervisor Dorothy Clifton, that "finding a mess don't mean that it hasn't been cleaned up already in airlines Finding a mess like that doesn't mean that it hasn't been cleaned up maybe two or three times during the day. Because they are real messy there and they are working constantly around the clock. And you can clean it up and go back an hour or two later and you've got the same mess to clean up again " 434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD she was discharged, i.e., complaints from Eastern (or as Heyse purportedly told Castille, complaints from airlines), I have found lacked any basis in fact. Moreover, even were I to credit Benton's testimony that he had received the two airline complaints, the fact that Benton, who logged serious complaints and admittedly did not do so in these instances, or even discuss the complaints with Mott, would support the conclusion that the alleged complaints from airlines were not the reason for Mott's discharge, as Heyse testified he instructed Castille to tell Mott at the time of her termination. Furthermore, I find, in addition to the fact that Respondent shifted from its declared reason at the time of the discharge to add other reasons at the time of the hearing (i.e., complaints from sources other than airlines), that Respondent's further explanation for Mott's discharge does not withstand examination. The other source of complaints as to which Respondent presented testimony concerned those made by Rodin relating to work left undone by Mott during the evening shift.12 Benton's testimony is, however, that he had received just two or three complaints from Rodin concerning Mott and that this kind of complaint occurred almost daily. Furthermore, Benton's failure to even communicate with Mott about these complaints evidences that Rodin's complaints were not considered serious and would not have been the basis for her termination. For the record establishes that where an employee's work was considered unsatisfactory, the procedure followed by the supervisors was to warn the employee, and give the employee an opportunity to improve prior to any termination action. It is particularly significant that Mott, who was a senior employee among a complement where there was substantial turnover, was never told her work was unsatisfactory or given any warning that her job was in jeopardy by Benton or any other official of the Company. Indeed during Mott's relatively long tenure with the Company she had been individually complimented for her work by Benton in the summer of 1970, was a member of a group whom Benton told was doing a good job in December 1970, and had been commended to Benton for the fine job she was doing for Eastern as late as January 1971. In the circumstances, Respondent's sudden termination of Mott without any prior warning I find was not for the reason, advanced by Respondent, that complaints were received about Mott's work performance.i3 It having been found that the reasons advanced by Respondent were pretextual, I conclude that the motivating reason for the Company's termination of Mott was her union activities. In reaching this conclusion I have considered the Respondent's argument that there was no showing of coercive conduct by Respondent between November and Mott's discharge in January. However, I find this insufficient to outweigh the other evidence pertaining to the Company's discharge motivation. The Company knew of Mott's activities on behalf of the Union, which it opposed, and had threatened to discharge Mott for 12 As noted Respondent failed to introduce the Company's logs, these would have provided objective evidence of the complaints entered about Mott as compared to the number of complaints entered against other employees for similar reasons 13 In its brief Respondent points to the fact that during the month her union role; these affirmative facts which provide a substantial basis for the conclusion of unlawful motivation are lent further support by Respondent's shifting reasons for Mott's discharge, its failure to proffer any credible evidence in support of its initially stated reason for Mott's summary dismissal, and the failure of its later explanation to stand up on close examination of the credible evidence in this record. Accordingly, I conclude that Respondent's discharge of Mott was because of her union activities and therefore was in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Company set forth in section III, above, occurnng in connection with the operations of the Respondent, as described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, 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 It having been found that the Company engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, it will be recommended that the Company cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It will be recommended that the Company offer Mary Mott reinstatement and also make her whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against her, by payment to her of any loss of wages which she may have suffered by reason of her discharge consistent with the Board policy set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. Interest on backpay shall be computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Company, 138 NLRB 716. On 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 Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. The Company by discharging Mary Mott on January 24, 1971, for engaging in union activities, violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, which unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, preceding her discharge Mott had read a newspaper for 15 minutes while on the job, smoked a cigarette in the restroom dunng worktime, and failed to have her worksheet signed properly. As to none of these incidents, however, was any complaint ever made to Mott or a warning given as to possible disciplinary action THE CAMERON COMPANY 435 and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 14 ORDER "Notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in writing , within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply he. ewith " The Cameron Company its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in Local 545, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO or any other labor organization, by discriminatorily discharging any of its employees or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the purposes of the Act: (a) Offer to Mary Mott immediate and full reinstatement to her former position or, if that position no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges and make her whole 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 records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to compute the amount of backpay due under the terms of this recommended Order. (c) Post at Houston International Airport copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 15 Copies of said notf ,e, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 23, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Respondent, shall be posted by Respon- dent immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including 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 23, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.16 14 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and Recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes 15 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 National 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 " 16 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government Following a trial in which the Company and the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board participat- ed and offered their evidence, a Trial Examiner of the Board has found that we violated the law; we hereby inform you that: The National Labor Relations Act gives all employees these rights: To engage in self-organization To form, join, or help unions To bargain collectively through a representative of their own choosing To act together for collective bargaining or other aid or protection To refrain from any or all of these things. WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against employees to try to discourage employees from being or becoming members of Local 545 Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner, interfere with you or attempt to restrain or coerce you in the exercise of the above rights. WE WILL offer Mary Mott immediate and full reinstatement to her former job or, if thatjob no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, and pay her for the earnings she lost as a result of her January 24, 1971, discharge, plus 6-percent interest. All our employees are free, if they choose, to join Local 545 Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. THE CAMERON COMPANY (Employer) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. 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. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 6617 Federal Office Building, 515 Rusk Avenue Houston, Texas, Telephone 713-226-4296.