Autumn Leaf Lodge

638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD National Living Centers, Inc., d/b/a Autumn Leaf Lodge and Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO. Case l6-CA-4206 October 8, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY On July 9, 1971, Trial Examiner Phil Saunders issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that 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. The Trial Examiner also found that Respondent had not engaged in other unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint and recommend- ed that those allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the 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 brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations I of the Trial Examiner. 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, National Living Centers, Inc., d/b/a Autumn Leaf Lodge, Hurst, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order. I In the absence of exceptions , we adopt, pro forma, the Trial Examiner's 8(a)(1) findings and recommendations TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE PHIL SAUNDERS, Trial Examiner: This proceeding, heard at Fort Worth, Texas, on April 1 and 2, 1971,1 pursuant to I All dates herein refer to the year 1970 unless otherwise stated 2 All credibility resolutions made herein based on a composite an original charge filed on December 7 and a complaint issued February 5, 1971, presents questions as to whether Autumn Leaf Lodge, herein called the Respondent or Company, engaged in various acts of interference, restraint, or coercion, and whether the Respondent discriminatonly discharged Pauline Monkers on September 16. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the following: 2 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent is a Delaware corporation and is engaged in managing and operating convalescent homes and nursing homes in Texas, Louisiana, and Indiana, including a nursing home located in Hurst, Texas, which is the only nursing home involved in this proceeding. During the preceding 12 months the Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, performed services the gross value of which exceeded $100,000, and during the same period performed services valued in excess of $100,000 at points located outside the State of Texas. 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 Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, herein the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Ill. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The Respondent' s nursing home has approximately 33 rooms constructed in a T-shape design with two wings. It employs between 38 and 42 employees covering three shifts and the nursing home has a total of 78 beds. The Respondent employs one RN-the director of nurses-and four LVNs. The day and night shifts have one LVN each while the afternoon shift has two. The chief or head administrator at the home is Zana Mae Davis, and she stated that her secretary, Phyliss Massey, was "second in command." Other than Davis the only other admitted supervisor is the director of nursing. The Respondent acquired ownership of the home in June and in early August Administrator Davis informed employees that there would be a reduction from an 8 hour day to 7-1/2 hours a day effective on or about August 15. The complaint alleges that Nancy Moody is a supervisor and the Respondent denies the allegation. This issue becomes important to the General Counsel in attributing union knowledge to the Respondent prior to the discharge here in question . Moody testified that as an LVN she was a supervisor on the 11 to 7 night shift and stated she was in charge of the "complete building," and that she checked each patient and assigned duties to the three or four nurses aides on her shift. Moody also testified she worked as night supervisor both before and after Davis took over, and stated that after Davis took over as administrator she had evaluation of the demeanor of the witnesses and the probabilities of the evidence as a whole. 193 NLRB No. 89 AUTUMN LEAF LODGE 639 effectively recommended that Thelma Parks be fired for failure to report to work. It appears that Ann Carter was also included in this recommendation, but had quit before any action was taken. Moody said the nurses aides would inquire of her where they were to work on particular nights and she would then distribute the work to them. She further testified that when she first went to the home there was no organization in the assignment of janitorial duties and as a result she "broke these duties down and assigned different nights to do different things" with the approval of the director of nurses The General Counsel also introduced testimony through Moneta Rowell to the effect that Moody was the night supervisor who told others what to do when instructions were needed, and that on occasions when employees had to leave early or for some reasons were late in reporting for work, they had "to clear" with Moody. Thelma Coffin testified that in August she felt the work was getting too much for her and Monkers so she went to Moody to get help as Moody was the night nurse in charge and her supervisor Darlene Lane, the Respondent's Director of Nurses during the period in question, testified that Nancy Moody was the LVN in charge of the night shift.3 Section 2(11) of the Act defines a supervisor as: .. . any individual having authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action, if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment. [Emphasis supplied.] Moody is the only LVN working the night shift, and is clearly responsible for seeing that the work on this shift is performed as required. As pointed out, if Moody is not a supervisor then one must conclude that the entire nursing home and its many patients are left without any direct supervision during the night hours, and this is not the case. Moody assigns certain duties to the three or four nurses aides on her shift, and checks the patients rendering the services an LVN is capable of giving. She has the authority to, and does, grant time off, and she also effectively recommends discharges and transfers to other shifts This record further reveals that Respondent's employees consid- er Moody as their supervisor and their beliefs have been reinforced by the activities of Respondent. Moreover, when all the above circumstances are construed in the light of Moody's position as the sole LVN in the entire home during the night shift, such circumstances are clearly calculated and designed to impress employees with the fact that Moody is their boss, and has power to back her instructions through the exercise of supervisory authority. On the basis of the discretionary duties, responsibilities, and authority noted above, I find that Moody is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. Pauline Monkers was employed by the Respondent in the latter part of April and had continuous employment until her discharge on September 16. She was first employed as a nurses aide on the day shift and remained there for several weeks, but because of convenience to her was then transferred to the 11-7 shift. Her hourly pay was $1.48. It appears that sometime during the middle of August, the employees received their paychecks reflecting less wages than previous checks due to their reduction of hours from an 8-hour day to a 7-1/2-hour day, as aforestated. Monkers stated that as a result the employees were disappointed, and she then started asking each employee on the night shift their thoughts in regards to organizing a union. Monkers also inquired of Supervisor Moody as to what she thought about a union. Monkers further told the employees on the night shift that she had a brother-in-law who was a representative for a labor organization and he could help them organize. Monkers stated she then discussed this matter with her brother-in-law and he told her to "scout around" and see who was interested in a union. Monkers also testified she was in the process of getting a union meeting set up but those plans were frustrated by her discharge. Monkers left work on September 13 or 14 and by her schedule had 2 days off, but when she reported back for work on September 16 her timecard had been pulled and another aide informed Monkers of her termination. Monkers then called Davis and told her she did not understand why she had been fired, and Davis replied it was due to her work. Monkers testified that no one had given her any warning whatsoever nor had anyone ever criticized her work. The General Counsel produced testimony through the former director of nurses, Darlene Lane, to the effect that Monkers was a dependable nurses aide, that she was always present or available for work, that she was well groomed and neat, and that she treated patients well. Lane testified she had discussed Monkers' work with Supervisor Nancy Moody and by so doing had ascertained that her work was also satisfactory on the night shift. However, Lane indicated that Davis had told her several times of her intentions to discharge Monkers because she was talking "religion" and "politics" and she was only waiting for a replacement before doing so. Subsequently, Lane agreed to be the one to inform Monkers of her discharge as her replacement was then available, but during the interval shortly prior to September 16, Lane resigned from her employment at the home. Nurses aide Olla Mae Clifton stated that during breaks Monkers did not converse at any greater duration than the others, but ventured that Monkers never mentioned the Union to her. Moneta Rowell corroborated for the General Counsel the fact that she and others also heard of union organization during the middle of August when salary checks were cut due to the reduction in hours. Rowell further indicated that the employees on the II to 7 shift thereafter conversed almost every night about the Union, stated that Monkers mentioned she had a brother-in-law who worked with a labor organization and that she would contact him, and further testified that Night Supervisor Moody was present during these union discussions. Katy a Davis stated that while she is not present at night (nor is the director received calls when decisions had to be made including relayed messages of nurses) the work of an administrator is a 24-hour job and that she from employees unable to report for work. 640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Ratliff classified Monkers as "average" when she first worked on the 7 to 3 shift Turning now to witnesses and testimony produced by the Respondent in relation to the discharge here in question. Administrator Davis testified she had received many complaints on Monkers , and on one occasion had told her "to get on the ball " Davis said that on or about the first of September she held a staff meeting and this is when she finally decided to terminate her. According to Davis right after this staff meeting nurse Thelma Coffin informed her that she would quit if Davis "didn 't do something about Monkers" because she could not take any more of her discussions about politics and religion Davis said that Coffin was a good nurse and she did not want to lose her, and went on to state that as of mid-September she was not aware of any union activity and did not become aware of any such activity until October, and, in the final analysis testified that Monkers was discharged because she did not do her work and "kept all the others upset ." Dexter Mitchell is an LVN on the 3 to I I shift , but for a "few days" was Monkers supervisor on the 7 to 3 shift. Mitchell rated Monkers fair to poor on the quality and quantity of her work , stated she was not interested in her work-never volunteered-and had to be asked to do things, but admitted that Monkers never refused to do ajob when told or directed to do it Mitchell said he also received complaints on Monkers from other aides and he then passed these complaints on to Darlene Lane, but that he was not consulted by Davis at the time of the discharge in question and had heard nothing about a union until after Monkers was terminated. Nurses aide Prudie Souder said in her testimony that Monkers spent too much of her time talking and standing around and would never volunteer her services . Souder stated that the first time she heard about any union was after Monkers' discharge Phyliss Massey testified that before she became the assistant and secretary to Davis on October 1, she was a nurses aide and in this capacity worked with Monkers during "one night ." Massey said that on this particular occasion Monkers dust "stood and watched" and was of no assistance to her while she was lifting patients in and out of their beds Massey stated she knew nothing about any union until October. Nurses aide Virginia McEver worked with Monkers for some time on the 1i to 7 shift , but declared she could not properly care for the patients while working with her. McEver referred to Monkers as unstable, said she lacked bedside manners and had no routine , and testified she reported these shortcom- ings to Moody on the night she (McEver ) walked out, and Moody then told McEver she had received other com- plaints on Monkers and had mentioned them to Lane 4 In rebuttal the General Counsel introduced testimony through Thelma Coffin to the effect that she never complained to Davis about Monkers, but stated that about a month prior to the discharge Davis came to her and inquired as to the kind of work Monkers was doing, and in reply Coffin told Davis she could not say anything against her except she was rather slow in answering lights. Davis then told Coffin, "That's all I want to know. I'm going to a Davis stated that on the night McEver walked out she left a note under her office door, and the note said that she could not work under the conditions at the home, and that she and her husband had to earn more get rid of her." Coffin further related that she worked with Monkers for about 2 months, and as a nurses aide would rate her as average. Supervisor Nancy Moody also appeared as a rebuttal witness for the General Counsel. Moody agreed that union talk started after the hours were cut back and other employee benefits reduced, and in these regards the record reflects the following testimony by Moody: A. Well, yes, very definitely. The night I went in and everybody was pretty upset. The union talk started. Q. Now, who did you first hear it from? A. Well, Pauline Monkers apparently had some relatives, brother-in-law she knew quite a bit about unions. She said that she could organize the place, that she had - [Emphasis supplied.] Q. Did she actually tell you that? Q. Well, tell us the best you can what she said to you? A. Pauline asked me how I felt about a union, and of course I felt the place needed something due to the working standards and everything else. Q. What did you tell her? A. I told her that I could not be active, because I was considered part of management. Q. All right. Now, did you have any discussions on your own with any of the other supervisory personnel or LVN's, the people in charge, about this? A. Yes, I tried to feel most of the LVN's out as to how they felt about it. Q. All right. Who did you discuss this with and try to feel them out? A. I remember talking to Eloise Holder, Lou Clark, Dexter Mitchell and Gail Snyder. Moody related that on the night of the discharge Davis called her and referred to Monkers as an "agitator." Moody found that Monkers learned her work well, stated that she never "went directly" to Davis about Monkers' work, and admitted that Monkers had "personality conflicts" with McEver and Coffin, but stated such difficulties had nothing to do with Monkers' qualifications or work. Moody said that she did not know Davis was going to discharge Monkers as she had not consulted with her. There are several incidents in this record which happened subsequent to the discharge here in question, and before my final evaluation as to Monkers I will briefly mention them. Davis testified that the first time she had any knowledge whatsoever of any union activity in any nursing home in the Fort Worth area was in mid-October, at a meeting of the Tarrant County Association, but then indicated that as of this time she was still not aware of any union activity at the Respondent's home itself. The Respondent also produced testimony to the effect that in mid or late October, State employees Crenshaw and Hill were in the office of the money than they were making with the Respondent Davis testified that Monkers' name was not mentioned in the note AUTUMN LEAF LODGE 641 nursing home discussing with Davis their Job 70 program when Mrs. J. A. Kent, of Kents' Registry, called by phone.5 Mrs. Kent then informed Davis that a mutual friend told her that Monkers was trying to organize the nursing homes, that she was "out to get" Davis, and that Monkers was making various complaints against the Respondent. Davis testified that after this telephone conversation Crenshaw, who overheard her phone conversation with Kent, then told her he had received a complaint from Monkers indicating that the reason for her termination was so the Respondent could hire Job 70 girls.6 According to Davis, Crenshaw went on to tell her that the complaint by Monkers also contained charges dealing with sanitation and health conditions at the home and that Monkers had also written a letter to Congressman Jim Wright. The Respondent produced testimony through employee Edna Spann to the effect that after Monkers' termination Spann had a conversation with her in which Monkers indicated that all employees would be replaced by Job 70 people, that she was going to cause Davis any kind of trouble she could, that she was also going to write to Congress, and further that Monkers was going to get in touch with all the labor boards In December, Thomas Bowdre, supervising inspector for the Texas State Department of Health, received a complaint initiated by Monkers. Bowdre testified that the complaint stated the Respondent had engaged in gross neglect of patients, was committing certain violations on sanitary conditions, and further that the home had been notified as to upcoming inspections so they could pass the inspection. Bowdre and two other health officials then made an inspection of the Respondent's facility and later Bowdre made a report on his investigation and concluded that the complaints were notjustified In the latter part of January or the early part of February of 1971, Martha Patrick, administrator for Brookhaven Nursing Home, testified that Monkers had applied for a job at Brookhaven, and that when she asked her why she had left the Respondent's home, Monkers replied that Davis felt she was working for the Union. Patrick then went on to testify that Monkers became irrational, very nervous and very upset, and had stated. But, that Mrs Davis had crossed her and when she crossed her, she crossed the wrong person, that she would get even with her and she would clear her own name. Monkers denied making any statements to the effect she was going to file charges or make trouble for Davis or that employees were going to be replaced by Job 70 people. She admitted writing to her Congressman alleging the health standards were violated at the Respondent's home and that she had been replaced by Job 70 people. Monkers further admitted filing charges with the Wage and Hour Department.? The Respondent points out that the original unfair labor practice charge in the instant case was filed by the Union 5 From time to time the Respondent uses Kents' Registry in securing the names of potential nurses and other needed help i, it appears that Job 70 people are lacking in certain educational advantages, and the Respondent trains some of these people through the Texas Employment Commission I In testifying for the General Counsel former employee Sandra Fietz stated that at a staff meeting in November , Davis told them "she had let on December 7, and argues that this took place after Monkers had already filed complaints with several other agencies. The Respondent would more or less place all of these charges in the category of revenge against Davis and the Respondent on the part of Monkers, and in detailing their argument along these lines state the following: "summarily stated, these witnesses [for Respondent] indicated that Monkers was going to engage in a campaign aimed at destroying Davis personally, defame the name of the Respondent in the community and harass the employer- employee relationship at the Respondent's place of business Although not dispositive of the question as to the motivation of the Respondent in discharging Monkers, this testimony supports the proposition that Monkers had problems with other employees while at the Respondent's place of business, was an `agitator' thus, substantiating the only reasons given by the Respondent in discharging the individual. Can a witness with emotions, intentions and motives so twisted and perplexed be a witness of credibility?" From this record it is most obvious that Monkers was extremely upset with her discharge and did not take it lightly. In fact, she may well have instituted some measures of personal vendetta against Davis and the home, but, in the final analysis, the complaint in this instant proceeding must stand or fall on its own merits, and if the unfair labor practice charge was filed merely to harass or defame Davis and the Respondent, then my findings and conclusions will be in accordance therewith. It is noted, of course, that none of the incidents referred to above took place until after the termination and therefore could play no part in any of the reasons for discharge existing as of September 16 or prior thereto. There is also the possibility that Monkers took a retaliatory attitude because of her strong feeling that she was unjustly and summarily fired for engaging in protected union activity. From this record it is clear that Monkers was the one who initiated the union organizational talk and movement at the Respondent's nursing home. As pointed out, she and other employees experienced mutual dissatisfaction over a reduction in hours and pay and as a result Monkers endeavored to seek information about organizing. She was advised to scout around to see whether enough interest could be developed, and in the process of looking for support and talking about it at work on a daily basis, her union interest became a known fact, and she was subsequently terminated. The Respondent had direct knowledge of Monkers' union activity through Night Supervisor Nancy Moody. By the testimony and open admissions of Moody as aforestat- ed, there can be no dispute that by the end of August, Moody was fully aware of Monkers' union activity, and therefore, the Respondent had specific knowledge of her union efforts and plans prior to the discharges The Respondent makes an argument to the effect that some Pauline Monkers go, and that she was working with the union-or for the unioi., and she said she had been reported to the Labor Board and to four or five other agencies " Carolyn Wright attended the meeting at the home in October and related that on this occasion Davis told them she had been reported to various agencies "by a girl she had to let go that had union activity, and we all knew who the girl was." s If for some reason it is determined by the Board that Moody lacks (Continued) 642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD witnesses admitted they never heard Monkers mention anything about a union. A review of the record, however, shows that several of those so testifying were not on the night shift, and if they were on the same shift as Monkers they had assignments other than as a nurses' aide. For purposes here this argument by the Respondent in no way detracts from the admissions by Supervisor Moody, and even if Monkers talked to no one else the fact that she did mention her union plans to a supervisor would be sufficient to invoke the protection of the Act. At the outset of the trial Davis suggested that Monkers was discharged because her work was unsatisfactory. Then the director of nurses, Darlene Lane, testified that Monkers' work was satisfactory and Night Supervisor Moody, who was probably in the best position to judge, stated that in her opinion Monkers "learned her job well" and that Davis had never consulted with her prior to the discharge in question. Later in the trial Davis testified that complaints by Thelma Coffin finally persuaded her to discharge Monkers, but then Thelma Coffin appeared as a rebuttal witness and said that she never complained to Davis about Monkers, and as a nurses' aide rated her ability as average. As pointed out, the defense presented by the Respondent expanded in flexibility somewhat as the trial proceeded, but in the final analysis both supervisors, and then the one nurse Davis, had great confidence in Coffin-all gave favorable testimony for Monkers. Coffin explained at the hearing that when she told Moody she could not work another night with Monkers, she meant that it was too much work for the two of them to do. Coffin also related that about a month before Monkers was fired, Davis came to her and asked how Monkers was getting along, and she then told Davis she could not say anything against Monkers except that she was slow answering lights. Davis replied, "That's all I want to know. I am going to fire her." Davis never warned Monkers about this and as far as this record goes never mentioned this to Lane or Moody. It becomes apparent that Davis was merely searching for some reason to get rid of Monkers after learning of her union interest and activity. Dexter Mitchell rated Monkers as fair to poor, but admittedly only observed her for a day or two and then further admitted that Monkers had never refused to carry out assignments when directed to do so Phyliss Massey only worked with Monkers one night and is now the secretary and assistant to Davis. Virginia McEver regis- tered various shortcomings against Monkers, as aforemen- tioned, and left the impression she walked off and quit her job because of Monkers. However, the note she left under the office door did not even mention Monkers. Moody stated that Mc Ever walked out when Monkers had inquired about sterilizers, and that the next morning she mentioned this incident to Lane-that both Mr. and Mrs. McEver had quit-but did not mention anything about Monkers. It appears to me that McEver quit because of financial and various other reasons, and the testimony of Moody and Lane clearly exonerates Monkers. Turning now to the specific 8(a)(1) allegations in the complaint: Olla Clifton remembers Davis saying at one of supervisory capacity, the Board's small plant doctrine would then apply and invoke, by inferences, prior union knowledge the October meetings "if we did organize a union and we struck that she could-would replace us. The minute we walked out, she could replace us." Carolyn Wright also gave credited testimony that during the middle part of October, Davis told a meeting of employees she did not want any of them talking about the Union and that if they did so "she could fire" them and "would." The above are clearly threats of discharge and as such violative of the Act. It is alleged that on or about October 16, 1970, the Respondent posted, promulgated, and enforced an invalid no-solicitation rule for the purpose of depriving its employees of their right to engage in activities on behalf of the Union. Prior to union discussions and organizational plans the Respondent did not have any type of rule against solicitations or distributions at the nursing home. However, in October the Respondent posted a no-solicitation rule prohibiting solicitation of any kind on the premises during working hours.9 Testimony shows that the question of solicitation was again brought up in a meeting in December when Davis told employees that she did not want them talking or soliciting for the Union on the job. The employees have two 15-minute coffee breaks on each shift which are paid time, and the General Counsel contends Davis made it clear that since the Respondent was paying them for coffee breaks, as distinguished from lunch breaks, they were to observe the no-solicitation rule on coffee breaks. Mary Stevenson stated that during lunch she was feeding one of the patients and while so doing mentioned to Edna Spann that Edna was "probably mad enough to go to a union meeting." Davis then called Stevenson into her office and told her not to talk to other employees at the lunch break while they were working. It seems that Spann worked in the kitchen and was serving dinners at the time Stevenson talked to her. Carolyn Wright attributed the statement to Davis that she did not want "any kind of soliciting of the unions brought out." An employer may promulgate and enforce a rule prohibiting union solicitation during working hours, and such rule is presumed to be valid in absence of evidence that it was adopted for discriminatory purposes. In the instant case there is no reliable evidence to show that the rule was invoked during nonworking hours, and in the one incident involving Stevenson and Spann during the lunch period, it appears that Spann was on work status at the time. Therefore, the General Counsel has failed to introduce evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of validity, and it is recommended that this allegation, and all other independent 8(a)(1) allegations not specifically found violative herein, be dismissed. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with its operations de- scribed 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 9 Resp Exh 2 AUTUMN LEAF LOD(t 643 burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Pauline Monkers by discharging her on September 16, 1970, I will recommend that Respondent offer her immediate and full reinstatement to her former position or, if thatjob no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of said discrimination against her by payment to her of a sum of money equal to that which she would have earned from the date of the discrimination against her to the date of her reinstatement less her net earnings during such period in accordance with the formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest thereon at 6 percent per annum. Because of the type of the unfair practices engaged in by Respondent, I sense an opposition by Respondent to policies of the Act and I deem it necessary to order Respondent to cease and desist from in any like or related manner interfering upon the rights guaranteed its employ- ees in Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record, I make the following- CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act 3. By discriminating in regard to hire and tenure of employment of Pauline Monkers by discharging her on September 16, 1970, because of her activities on behalf of the Union, and in order to discourage such union membership and activities, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 4. By threatening discharge of employees because of union activity, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the basis of 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 Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 10 ORDER Respondent, National Living Centers, Inc., d/b/a Autumn Leaf Lodge, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment or of any term or condition of employment of its employees because of their membership in and activities on behalf of the Union herein or any other labor organization of their choice. (b) Threatening employees with discharge because of their union activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Pauline Monkers immediate and full reinstatement to her former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against her in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy," with interest thereon at 6 percent per annum. (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this recommended Order. (c) Post at its nursing home in Hurst, Texas, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." ii Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 16, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ- ing 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 16, in wnting, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.12 10 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, 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 11 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 " 12 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL offer to Pauline Monkers her formerjob or, 644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD if that job no longer exists, a substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and we will pay her for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of our discrimina- tion against her together with interest thereon at 6 percent per annum WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge because of their union activity. WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate in regard to the hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment of our employees because of their membership in and activities on behalf of the Union herein or of any other labor organization of their choice. WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with , restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form , join or assist labor organiza- tions, including the Union herein, to bargain collective- ly through a bargaining agent chosen by our employees, to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any such activities. Dated By NATIONAL LIVING CENTERS, INC., D/B/A AUTUMN LEAF LODGE (Employer) (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, 8A24 Federal Office Building, 819 Taylor Street , Fort Worth, Texas 76102 , Telephone 817-334-2921.