Forest City Containers, Inc.

38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Forest City Containers, Inc. and Cynthia Underwood. Case 8-CA-7884 June 26, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. 151, et seq.), herein called the Act, by discharging Underwood on or about September 14, 1973, and thereafter refusing to reinstate her. The Company filed an answer denying the commission of any unfair labor practices. Fol- lowing the close of the hearing, General Counsel and the Company filed briefs. Upon the entire record in this case, from my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and upon careful consid- eration of the briefs, I make the following: On March 22, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Leonard M. Wagman issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed ex- ceptions and a supporting brief. . Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge'and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondent, Forest City Containers, Inc., Berea, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall take the action set forth in the said recom- mended Order. i The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge It is the Board 's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge 's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are 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 findings DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE LEONARD M. WAGMAN, Administrative Law Judge: A hearing in the entitled proceeding was held before me on January 15 and 23, 1974, at Cleveland, Ohio, on the com- plaint of the General Counsel against the Respondent, For- est City Containers, Inc., referred to hereinafter as the Company. Upon a charge and an amended charge filed by Cynthia Underwood' on September 17 and October 31, 1973, respectively, the complaint issued on October 31, 1973, alleging that the Company violated Section 8(a)(3) i The name of the case appears as amended at the hearing FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT AND THE LABOR ORGANIZA- TION INVOLVED The Company, an Ohio corporation, is engaged in the manufacture of corrugated cartons and displays at the plant involved in the instant proceeding, located at Berea, Ohio. In the course and conduct of its business, the Company annually ships products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points located outside the State of Ohio. I find that the Respondent Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Local No. 634, United Paperworkers International Union, AFL-CIO, referred to herein as Local 634, is it labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 11 THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Facts 2 Toward the end of August 1973, Cynthia Underwood, who was then unemployed, asked her fiance's mother, com- pany employee Ruth Buckwald, about job openings at the plant. Buckwald was also president of Local 634, which labor organization had a 3-year collective-bargaining agree- ment covering the Company's Berea plant employees until December 5, 1973. Upon Buckwald's advice, Underwood filed ajob application with the Company on August 27. On the first page of the Company's application form, next to the caption "Names of Friends With This Company," Under- wood inscribed "Ruth Buckwald " In its answer to the com- plaint, the Company admitted "that prior to hiring Miss Underwood it was aware that she was engaged to the son of the then President of the local Union. . . . After interviewing Underwood on August 28, Company Personnel Manager George Mark gave her application to Plant Manager Ernest J. Drda, Sr. The plant manager was hesitant about hiring Underwood and told Mark "he want- ed to think it over because . . . if she were anything like her mother-in-law, she would be another thorn in his side, or something to that effect." Within the next 2 days, Drda instructed Mark to call Underwood and "give her a try." The Company offered Underwood employment on its second shift (from 3:30 p.m. until midnight) Although she preferred the first shift (from 7 a.m until 3:30 p.m.), Under- wood accepted the job offer and reported for work at 2:45 2 Except as otherwise specifically indicated, the facts are based upon a compendium of the testimony of witnesses Cynthia Underwood, George Mark, and Ruth Buckwald 212 NLRB No. 16 FOREST CITY CONTAINERS, INC. 39 on the afternoon of September 4. When Plant Manager Drda went to Buckwald's work station and announced, "We dust hired Cynthia Under- wood," Buckwald' expressed satisfaction. However, when Drda added that Underwood would be on the second shift, Buckwald objected because of the inconvenience to Under- wood. Drda replied that there was no opening on the first shift "right now," but that as soon as there was one, Under- wood could bid for it. On the afternoon of September 4, after Underwood ap- peared for work, Personnel Manager Mark gave her a brief orientation. He gave her a memorandum addressed to new employees which welcomed her to the plant, set forth work- ing hours, and explained some basic plant rules. Under- wood and Mark discussed her request for a job on the first shift. When Mark asked if she would be interested in an office job which he expected to be available in about 2 weeks, Underwood said she would. Underwood also learned that for the first 30 days she would be a probation- ary employee .3 Ten minutes before the beginning of the second shift, Mark introduced Underwood to the shift fore- man, William E. Knight. Underwood was assigned to scrap- ping boxes, a production task which required the use of a hammer and chisel to "beat out the perforated lines so the boxes fold up." She remained in this job until her discharge on September 14. On Friday morning, September 7, after 3 days of scrap- ping, Underwood awoke with a sore wrist. After visiting a physician, she telephoned Buckwald and complained to her about her sore wrist and sought advice about a possible reassignment. Buckwald's advice was to report for work and take the matter up with Foreman Knight. That afternoon, Underwood reported for work at 3:30 and immediately complained to Knight about her wrist which was swathed in an Ace bandage. When she pressed him about a less strenuous job, Knight asked if she could work with her left hand. When Underwood replied that she would try, Knight took her to the scrapping area, and she began to work with her left hand. As Underwood worked, her pain continued. At the 7:30 dinner break that evening, Knight sent Underwood home, after he discovered her crying at her work station. Before leaving, Underwood complained to Knight about the scrap- ping, adding "it seems to me you could put me on another job." The foreman responded that nothing else was avail- able. Underwood also complained that while others had been hired on the first shift, she "had been overlooked." She asked, "What is it?" Knight replied that he had "nothing to with the hiring" and to take the matter up with Plant Man- ager Drda. In the exchange, Underwood pointed out that she had taken her cause to Local 634 through Buckwald. Early in the week of September 10, Buckwald learned of 3 Art V, sec. 1, of Local 634 s contract with the Company provided in pertinent part as follows: Employees shall be considered on probation and they shall not have seniority until they have been in the employ of the Company for thirty (30) days, at which time seniority shall date from the most recent date of hire. The Company shall have no responsibility to recall probationary employees if they are laid off during such thirty (30) day period, and during said period the Company shall have the unrestricted right to discharge or transfer such probationary employees. a posted opening for an air scraper on the first shift. On September 11 or 12, she advised Underwood to bid for the opening. However,, Underwood reported back "they had taken it off the board and put it on at night." At work on September 13, Buckwald requested Local 634's day-shift steward, Madeline Wells, to investigate the removal of the air scraper job to the night shift. Steward Wells reported back that Plant Manager Drda's response to her inquiry was, "That was the way it was going to be." Upon receiving this report, Buckwald went to Drda to raise the matter anew. It was about 2 p.m. and Drda said "he didn't have time." He added that he would meet with her when he had time. About 10 minutes before the end of the shift, Plant Man- ager Drda came to Buckwald's work station. Buckwald and others were cleaning the floor and she complained that this was an inappropriate time for Drda to launch a discussion of the matters troubling her. Drda responded by asking Buckwald to state what it was she wished to see him about. At this Buckwald asked, "Why did you put the job on nights?" Drda answered, "I am going to put it there regard- less of whether you like it or not." Buckwald protested, saying that he was "taking people's rights away" and that older people with more seniority would lose a chance at a job paying "11 cents more an hour." She gave herself as an example. At this, Drda pointed out that she and others could "go on nights." After protesting that her seniority entitled her to be on the day shift, Buckwald asserted that Drda's action was in retaliation for the letters she had writ- ten to Company President Sheard. Drda responded, "Yes, more of your letter writing." Buckwald then recalled that she had previously warned him that "when there isn't any- thing accomplished about the things that you said you would do in the plant, I would write a letter to Mr. Sheard." When she reiterated her charge of retaliation, Drda an- swered: "That is my damn prerogative." Buckwald's letters to the company president, numbering three or four, resulted from her dissatisfaction with Drda's treatment of Local 634s complaints about plant working conditions. Such complaints were raised by Local 634's rep- resentatives, including President Buckwald, at meetings with Drda, who would assure them that "he would try to get at [them] or ' he would see about [them]." Buckwald dis- patched her last letter to President Sheard on or about Sep- tember 7, complaining about working conditions in the Glue Department. Buckwald also wrote similar letters to the Company's owners during 1973. Following her exchange with Drda, at the end of her shift, Buckwald clocked out, went home, and, in a telephone con- versation with President Sheard, renewed her complaint about the rescheduling of the air scraper job and Underwood's loss of an opportunity to bid on a day-shift job. Sheard disclaimed knowledge and said he would "get back" to her after consultation with Drda. Sheard never answered Buckwald's complaint. About 15 minutes after Cynthia Underwood reported for work on September 14, she "became quite sick." She applied cold towels to her face and neck and was otherwise assisted by fellow employees. She reported the situation to Foreman Knight and asked for permission to go home. Knight con- sented. However, when he declined her request for a ride 40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD home, Underwood telephoned her fiance. When Underwood's fiance arrived and she was about to leave, Knight handed her a final check. Underwood asked: "Does this mean I am fired?" Knight answered, "Sort of." He added that scrapping "is a man's work and it is hard on a woman," and that her "percentages ° were not what they should be." 5 Soon after her departure from the plant Underwood tele- phoned Foreman Knight to inquire further about her dis- charge. Knight referred her to Personnel Manager Mark who answered her. Mark told her that she was "let go" because she was "incompatible to thejob." When she asked about a secretarial position, Mark said he could not tell her anything at that time. Underwood had no further contact with the Company. B. Analysis and Conclusions It is well settled that the discharge of an employee be- cause he or she has a familial relationship with a union activist is violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Champion Papers, Inc (Ohio Division) v. N.L.R B., 393 F.2d 388, 394-395 (C.A. 6, 1968), enfg. 158 NLRB 978 (1966); Ridgely Manufacturing Company, 207 NLRB No. 17 (1973); Golub Bros. Concessions, 140 NLRB 120, 121 (1962). Here, the General Counsel contends that Cynthia Underwood's discharge on September 14 was in retaliation for the union activity of her fiance's mother, Ruth Buck- wald, and therefore violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. The Company challenges that contention, urging that it has demonstrated Underwood's discharge to have been lawful. I agree with the General Counsel's contention and find the Company's defense to be wholly without merit. The Company concedes that it hired Underwood with the knowledge that she was engaged to Ruth Buckwald's son. Plant Manager Drda, who dealt with employee Buckwald on union matters in her role as president of Local 634, manifested reluctance to hire Underwood because "if she were anything like her mother-in-law she would be another thorn in his side...." Plant Manager Drda's vivid lan- guage reflected considerable displeasure with Buckwald's letters to Company President Sheard seeking satisfaction of According to Plant Manager Drda's credited and undisputed testimony, "percentages" refers to the production efficiency of a scrapper The basis of the percentage is "[t]he number of pieces or cartons that a person was able to manufacture in a given time " 5 Contrary to Underwood, Knight testified that in response to her request for an explanation of her discharge, he replied that the reasons were lateness and her apparent dislike of her work Underwood testified fully and in a relaxed straightforward manner In contrast , Knight was an uneasy and reluctant witness under cross-examination . When pressed , he admitted that in his affidavit given to a Board agent in October 1973 he had declared emphatically that tardiness was the sole reason he gave Underwood on September 14 When asked to account for this inconsistency, he testified "Yes I remember saying this was it I didn't think you wanted every single " I find it difficult to accept Knight's explanation that he felt no compulsion to recount in its entirety so important an event as his confronta- tion with Underwood at the very moment of the very discharge under investi- gation by the Board, particularly when he recognized that he was being pressed to give a full account As I find Knight to be an unreliable witness, I do not credit his version of his conversation with Underwood at the time of her discharge on September 14 Nor have I credited him at other points of conflict between his testimony and Underwood's Local 634's demands regarding plant conditions. Beyond question, therefore, Drda was further alienated by Buckwald's disclosure in an already heated discussion on September 13 that she had gone to the Company's president the previous week regarding Local 634's complaint about the glue department's working conditions. Coupled with this background of hostility, the timing of Underwood's abrupt discharge the day following Buckwald's disclosure is persuasive evidence that the discharge was the Company's unlawful response to Buckwald's union activity. N.L.R.B v. Elias Brothers Big Boy, Inc., 325 F.2d 360, 366 (C.A. 6, 1964). The Company seeks to defend its conduct by showing that Plant Manager Drda's decision to discharge Under- wood was made for nonunion reasons during the second shift on September 13, after consideration of Foreman Knight's recommendation, a memorandum from Foreman Thomas R. Jackson, and a review of Underwood's record. At the outset, the Company's defense is weakened by the shifting and inconsistent reasons offered for Underwood's discharge. Thus, at the time of discharge, Foreman Knight told Underwood that the reason for her discharge was that "scrapping is a man's work and it is hard on a woman" and that her "percentages were not what they should be." Yet Underwood's timecard bears the following inscription: TERMINATED PROBATIONARY PERIOD CONSTANTLY LATE, WAS WARNED OF THIS BY SUPERVISOR The Company's answer to the complaint declares only "that Cynthia Underwood was discharged for continued and ex- tended tardiness in arrival at work." Similarly, a summary prepared by the Company from its records and entitled "PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEES HIRED IN 1973 WHO WERE TERMINATED" reports that the reason for Underwood's discharge was "TARDINESS." However, ad- ditional grounds were offered at the hearing, when Drda testified as to his "mental process" in deciding Underwood's fate on September 13, as follows: Well, one being the frequency or the lateness in com- ing in succession, which would bring to mind a pattern, an established pattern. Secondly, the note from Mr. Jackson stating the fact that she wasn't taking instruc- tions as she should have been. I think, to cross my mind, also the fact that Miss Underwood probably should have had an office job, if that would have been available I think she is out of caliber of an employee such as Forest City needs out in the plant. This went through my mind. I mean there were a number of things, the percentage or the efficien- cy, this was a factor also. Finally, in its brief (pp. 11-12) the Company offers yet another admixture consisting of lateness, leaving her work station, mediocre efficiency, failure to "do the work she was instructed to do by her foreman," and expressed displeasure with herjob as the reasons for her discharge. Such inability to settle upon a reason for Underwood's discharge strongly suggests that the proffered defense is pretextual. A. J. Kra- jewski Mfg Co. v. N L R.B., 413 F.2d 673, 676 (C.A. 1, 1969); N L.R.B v. Georgia Rug Mill, 308 F.2d 89, 91 (C.A FOREST CITY CONTAINERS, INC. 41 5, 1962). The Company's defense is further impaired by Drda's patently false testimony, on direct and cross-examination, that on September 13, the day of his decision to terminate Underwood, he had before him a memorandum from Fore- man Jackson complaining that Underwood "does not listen to orders and does not carry out her work load like she was instructed to." The falsity of Drda's testimony in this regard was established beyond doubt by the memorandum itself which is dated "9-27/73" and Foreman Jackson's credible testimony that he wrote it on September 26. Drda's resort to such a falsehood does not assist the Company's cause, but, rather, is further evidence of the unlawful design. N.L.R.B. v. Milco, Inc., 388 F.2d 133, 139 (C.A. 2, 1968), enfg. 159 NLRB 812 (1966). Nor did Drda assist the Company when he testified to reviewing Underwood's nine daily production records on January 21, 1974 (2 days before resumption of the trial of this matter), and adjusting three of them down and one them up. Drda made these changes at a time when he well knew the records were under subpena by the Board for this proceeding. His excuse was that he wanted to be sure of their accuracy before turning them over to the Government. However, in light of his proven willingness to fabricate rea- sons for Underwood's discharge, I reject his explanation. The more likely explanation for Drda's alteration of the records is his zeal to shore up the Company's defense. Examination of the stated reasons and other circum- stances reveals a disparity in Underwood's treatment which negates the Company's attempt to justify her discharge on lawful grounds. Thus, of the 24 probationary employees hired and terminated by the Company in 1973, the Company's own records show only Underwood as having been discharged for tardiness. It is also remarkable that, of the Company's 19 probationary scrapping employees em- ployed in 1973, only Underwood was discharged. Further, although the Company's stated policy is to reflect tardiness on an employee's attendance record, the attendance records of 15 probationary employees do not reflect any tardiness shown on the-timecards. Also, the Company had no atten- dance records for five other probationary employees whose timecards showed tardiness in 1973. Yet Underwood's at- tendance record meticulously reflects the five instances of tardiness shown on her timecard for the week of September 10. As for her tardiness, Underwood's timecard shows that she was 3 minutes late on September 10, 9 minutes, late on September 11, 1 minute late on September 12, 37 minutes late on September 13, and 1 minute late on September 14. According to former Personnel Manager Mark's credited and uncontradicted testimony, employees on Underwood's shift are often a minute or so late because they must share the Company's single timeclock with the first-shift employ- ees who "stampede" the clock in their desire to leave the plant. According to Underwood's credited testimony, this daily collision between the first and second shifts at the timeclock accounts for Underwood's two 1-minute and one 3-minute violations. Underwood was 9 minutes late on Sep- tember 11 because she took dinner to her fiance who was working near the Company's plant. On September 15, the day she was 37 minutes late, Underwood called Drda at 3:25 p.m. and told him that she would be late but that she was on her way. He said, "All right, fine." When she finally appeared at the plant, Underwood apologized to Drda for being late. Without more, Drda told her to see Foreman Knight, who also received her apology without response and simply put her to work scrapping. In any event, I find from Underwood's credible testimony that at no time dur- ing her brief tenure with the Company did Drda, Knight, or any other company official warn Underwood about her tardiness. It was not until after Drda's encounter with Lo- cal 634's president, Buckwald, on September 13, that Underwood's tardiness became important to the Company. At that juncture, the Company inscribed: "Constantly late, was warned of this by Supervisor," on her timecard, as the reason for Underwood's discharge, an assertion not borne out by the credited evidence. Finally, the Company complains that Underwood's pro- duction percentages were low. However, Personnel Manag- er Mark testified credibly that Underwood's production was average among' probationary employees. Also, the Company's records show that while Underwood's produc- tion efficiency fluctuated, she progressed from 31 percent on the first day of her scrapping, and achieved 66 percent on September 13 and 57 percent on September 14. Accord- mg to Drda, the 30-day probationary period is accorded to a new employee "as a proving ground" and that with respect to, acceptable performance during that period "there should be a definite progression upwards" in production. The sharp contradiction between Drda's recitation of company policy and the abruptness with which the Company terminated Underwood's employment, after only 2 weeks, during which her production showed definite improvement, further dra- matizes the pretextual nature of the Company's defense. In sum, I reject the Company's defense and find instead that Underwood's discharge was in retaliation for her in- tended mother-in-law's union activity as president of Local 634. Accordingly, I further find Underwood's discharge was violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By discharging employee Cynthia Underwood on Sep- tember 14, 1973, because of the union activity of her fiance's mother, Ruth Buckwald, the Company engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Company has violated the Act in certain respects, it will be recommended that the Company be ordered to cease and desist from such conduct and take affirmative action to remedy the effects of its illegal con- duct. The Company having discriminatorily discharged Cynt- 6 For reasons previously stated, I do not credit Kmgbt's testimony that he warned Underwood about her tardiness 42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD hia Underwood, I find it necessary to order the Company to offer her full reinstatement to her formerjob or, if that position no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent fob, without prejudice to her seniority and other rights or privi- leges. Underwood shall be made whole for any loss of earn- ings she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against her by payment to her of a sum of money equal to that which she normally would have earned from the date of her unlawful discharge (September 14, 1973) to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less net earnings, if any, during such period to be computed in the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER7 tive, shall be posted by it 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 8, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision , what steps have been taken to comply herewith. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government Respondent Forest City Containers, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: I. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging, refusing to employ, or otherwise dis- criminating against employees in regard to hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment because of their or any present or prospective relative's membership in, or activities on behalf of, Local No. 634, United Paperworkers International Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Cynthia Underwood immediate and full rein- statement 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 such loss of pay as she may have suffered as a result of the Respondent's discrimination against her, in the manner set forth in the section 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, person- nel 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 plant at Berea, Ohio, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 8 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 8, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representa- 7 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 E 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 " After a trial in which all parties participated, it has been found that we have violated the National Labor Relations Act in certain respects. To remedy these violations of the law, we advise you that: WE WILL NOT discharge employees because of their or any present or prospective relative's membership in or activities on behalf of Local No. 634, United Paper- workers International Union, AFL-CIO, or any other union. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to join or support Local No. 634, United Paperworkers International Union, AFL-CIO, or any other union, or to refrain from such activity. WE WILL offer to Cynthia Underwood immediate and full reinstatement to her former position or, if thatjob no longer exists, to a substantially equivalentjob, with- out prejudice to, and with restoration of, all seniority and other rights and privileges. WE WILL pay to Cynthia Underwood who we dis- charged on September 14, 1973, any wages she may have lost from the date of her discharge to the date of our offer of reinstatement, less any intermediate earn- ings she may have had, and with interest at 6 percent on any wages that we may owe her. FOREST CITY CONTAINERS. INC (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 altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be direct- ed to the Board's Office, Suite 1695, Anthony J. Celebrezze Federal Building, Cleveland, Ohio 44199, Telephone 216- 522-3725.