Moshannon Valley TV Cable Co., Inc.

MOSHANNON VALLEY TV CABLE CO. Moshannon Valley TV Cable Co., Inc. and Danny J. Higgins. Case 6-CA-7230 January 7, 1975 DECISION AND ORDER BY ACTING CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY On August 22, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Phil Saunders issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief and the General Counsel filed a brief in answer to Respondent's exceptions and 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 authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,I 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 Relations Board adopts as its order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondent, Moshannon Valley TV Cable Co., Inc., Philipsburg, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended 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 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. However, we agree with the Respondent that there is insufficient evidence to support the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that the pay increase to Higgins for the week ending October 13, 1973, was a benefit given to discourage Higgins' union activity. The record shows that the two employees in the unit alternate working on Saturdays , and there was no testimony from either employee that either contradicted the testimony of the secretary-bookkeeper or that showed that it was necessary for one of them to go into the office on Saturday to pick up his check. In these circumstances, and as the record shows that Manager Campomiazi's first knowledge of union activity was Friday evening, October 12, after the checks for that week apparently were made out, we conclude that the pay raise to Higgins for that week was not a violation of Sec. 8 (axl) of the Act. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE 89 PHIL SAUNDERS, Administrative Law Judge : Pursuant to a charge filed on January 21, 1974, by Danny J. Higgins, herein the Charging Party or Higgins, a complaint was issued on March 28, 1974, against Moshannon Valley TV Cable Co., Inc., herein Respondent or Company, alleging violations of Section 8(axl) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Respondent filed an answer to the alleged unfair labor practices. A hearing in this proceeding was held before me, and both the General Counsel and Respondent filed briefs. Upon the entire record in this case , and from my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following: t FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent is a Pennsylvania corporation with its sole place of business located in Philipsburg , Pennsylvania, where it is engaged in the operation of a cable television system in the Philipsburg area. During the 12-month period immediately preceding the issuance of this Com- plaint, Respondent derived a gross income in excess of $100,000, and more than 50 percent of its transmissions consisted of network programs originating in States of the United States other than the Commonwealth of Pennsylva- nia. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 521, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. M. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The amended complaint alleges that Respondent violat- ed Section 8(aXl) of the Act by interrogations, threatening loss of employment, discontinuing the practice of allowing employees to use Respondent's truck for transportation to and from work, granting wage increases, and not permit- ting employees to work on a local television station. The complaint further alleged Respondent violated the Act by discontinuing the practice of allowing its employees r At the start of the hearing Attorney Eugene L. Cimino appeared in behalf of Edward Blakely, the sole remaining employee of the Company. 216 NLRB No. 17 90 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Wednesday afternoons off and by permanently laying off Danny J. Higgins on or about December 28, 1973. The Respondent supplies cable television service to about 3,700 customers in the vicinity of Philipsburg, Pennsylvania. Richard Campomizzi, an admitted supervi- sor, was hired in 1960 as a working manager and initially built the towers and did most of the other work associated with operating a cable television system. Employee Edward Blakely was hired in August 1968 as an installer-service- man and is presently still so employed. On June 18, 1973, Campomizzi first employed Danny Higgins under a special training program wherein the Government was to pay one- half of his salary and Higgins worked about 3-1/2 weeks and then quit without giving any notice. Higgins was subsequently rehired on October 1, 1973, as an installer- technician and worked until December 28, 1973, when he was laid off and the latter incident is the event in question here. It appears that Respondent's two employees, Higgins and Blakely, discussed the possibility of union representa- tion and Blakely then contacted William Rauch, business agent for the Union, and both employees were given authorization cards . On October 2,2 Blakely and Higgins signed these cards and Blakely returned them to Rauch. On October 5, Rauch mailed a letter to John J. Barni, owner of Respondent, stating that the Union had a sufficient number of cards to represent Respondent's employees and requested negotiations with the Company. On the evening of October 12, Manager Campomizzi received a telephone call from owner John Barni asking Campomizzi what was "going on up there," and he also inquired about the Union and its status. Barni then asked Campomizzi what the employees wanted and concluded his call by telling his manager to "take care of it." Campomizzi immediately called employee Blakely and informed him of Bart's displeasure and asked him if he knew anything about the Union, inquired if he and Higgins had signed cards, and then asked Blakely whose idea it was. Campomizzi also inquired, "What right does Danny [Higgins ] have to sign. He was just hired there. He's just been here on a training program, apprenticeship." Moreo- ver, there is credited testimony by Blakely that Campomiz- zi on this occasion further told him there was "no way in hell the Union is coming into this company," and that he would "get rid" of Higgins to have it stopped. Campomizzi also reminded Blakely that he had been given the use of the Company truck, and after Blakely inquired if he was about to lose this benefit, Campomizzi replied, "Well, that's possible." Campomizzi concluded the call by advising Blakely that if he was not satisfied with his job he could "go hunt for another one." Campomizzi approached Higgins within a few days after October 12, while Higgins was working in the area of Osceola Mills, and asked him if he had signed a card for s All dates are 1973 unless stated otherwise. The workweek was arranged so that each installer-technician had alternate Wednesday afternoons off, but then worked the Saturday morning of that particular week. 4 Ronald Vaux, formerly employed by Respondent as an installer- technician, and Blakely had been active in organizing and attempting to operate Channel 9, a local cable television station . It appears that their the Union and why he had signed , and also told Higgins there was "no way in hell" the union was coming into the Company. Later the same day Campomizzi talked with Blakely and again asked him who had instigated the union involvement and the reasons for doing so. Within a few days after the Osceola Mills conversation, Campomizzi called Higgins and Blakely into his office and asked them, "What's this about the Union?" and "What do you think you're going to accomplish?" After Higgins told Campomizzi that he was only interested in better wages and working conditions , Campomizzi asked him what he thought was a fair wage, but Higgins advised Campomizzi to contact the Union for that information. Campomizzi then turned to Blakely and said he blamed him more than Higgins because he had been with the Company longer. Campomizzi concluded the conversation by stating , "Well, I don't like unions, I think they are no damn good." In October, Campomizzi told Higgins his work was "pretty good" and he had no complaints, and as a result he was giving Higgins a pay raise to $2.75 an hour, and also stated, "Maybe in 4 to 6 weeks, you can get $3.00 an hour." On the Tuesday prior to Thanksgiving, Campomizzi informed Blakely that he would be required to work on Wednesday afternoon.3 Blakely inquired if there was an emergency or need for his presence, and Campomizzi replied that "two can play this game," and "this is something that you've got to understand when you seek union representation." Blakely then asked Campomizzi if he had told Ronald Vaux that Blakely was not allowed to have further involvement with Channel 9 because of his (Blakely's) union activities, and Campomizzi then affirmed that he had made this statement .4 In December, the Company contracted with the local firm of Brown and Simmons to do some residential hookups or installations on new lines . Upon learning of this development Blakely and Higgins inquired of Cam- potttizzi why they would not be assigned this work, but Campomizzi replied that "you guys [Blakely and Higgins ] are just too busy," and also told them he had already committed himself. A discussion then ensued concerning Higgins' wage rate and concluded when Campomizzi stated th4t he thought Higgins was already getting $3 an hqur. After being informed by Higgins that this was not the case, that he was only making $2.75 an hour, Campomizzi replied that he would get it "straightened out" right away. Higgins then asked Campomizzi if he had made the statement to Blakely that he was going to "get rid" of him (Higgins), and to this inquiry the manager replied that he might have made "a lot of statements." On December 28, Campomizzi called Higgins into the office and told Higgins he was going to lay him off because he did not have enough work for two employees and by letter dated December 31 the Company informed Higgins that he should consider the layoff as permanent.5 efforts to operate Channel 9 were dependent on cooperation from Respondent, which controlled the cable system. 5 A petition in Case 6-RC-6677 was filed on November 19 and an amended petition on December 10. In December the parties hereto also entered into an agreement for a consent election to be held on January 11, 1974. At the election a challenged ballot was cast by Higgins, and the MOSHANNON VALLEY TV CABLE CO. Respondent maintains that Campomizzi did not make the statements attributed to him, as aforestated, and further argues that any statements made were protected by Section 8(c) of the Act. Based upon the demeanor of the witnesses and the events and circumstances in this record, I have credited the testimony produced by the General Counsel, and, of course, it is well established Board and court law that in determining whether an employer's conduct amounts to interference, restraint, or coercion within the meaning of Section 8(axl), the test is not the employer's intent or motive, but whether the conduct is reasonably calculated or tends to interfere with the free exercise of the rights guaranteed by the Act. From the demeanor of the witness and for other reasons noted herein, it is obvious that Manager Campomizzi did not want to admit to anything that would put him in bad stead with the Company, and certain aspects of his testimony is readily indicative thereof. The foregoing testimony which has been credibly attributed to Respondent includes numerous instances of unlawful interrogations by Campomizzi on October 12 when he inquired as to union activities, reasons, sympa- thies, and the identification of employees who had signed cards for the Union, and further interrogations of a similar nature a few days later at Osceola Mills and in the office, as aforestated. All of these interrogations by Campomizzi were unlawful inasmuch as the information elicited by management could serve no legitimate purpose, and provided no assurances of any kind against reprisals. It is without need of citation that an employer's threat to discharge an employee because of his membership in or activities on behalf of a union is violative of Section 8(axl) of the Act, and, as pointed out, there can be no clearer threat than Campomizzi's statement to Blakely on October 12 that he would discharge Higgins in order to stop the union, and also the manager's statement to employee Blakely that if not satisfied with his job he could "go hunt for another one." It is also clear that in late October Respondent withdrew from Blakely the benefit of permitting him the use of Respondent's truck for his transportation to and from work because of his union activities. From 1968 until October 1973, Respondent had permitted Blakely to drive the truck to and from work, but on October 12 Campomiz- zi forewarned Blakely of the possibility that this benefit would be lost, as aforementioned, and within a few weeks of this conversation, the Company began garaging the truck.6 Respondent argues that it was Campomizzi's desire to have the truck kept in a garage so the various hydraulic attachments would not freeze and the truck would be protected from the cold weather, and that the motive was to preserve its equipment and not to penalize Blakely for his union activities. However, even though Campomizzi Regional Director has deferred ruling on this challenged ballot pending the outcome of this proceeding. 6 Respondent produced testimony showing that in 1972 both Campomiz- zi and Blakely made efforts to find a garage to house the truck , but were unable to locate any facility. During this time, 1972, Campomizu contacted an operator of a service station about garaging the truck , but the station manager did not know whether his insurance would cover it, and apparently did not contact his insurance company until 6 or 8 months later and, when he found out he could keep the truck, had this information transmitted to Campomizzi, and the parties then entered into an agreement to store the 91 had made an inquiry into the possibility of garaging the truck in 1972, it was not until the discussions of union activities with Blakely in October that Respondent actually garaged the truck and denied Blakely the use of the vehicle to and from work. In view of Campomizzi's statement to Blakely on October 12, as aforestated, and the abruptness and timing of the decision to garage the truck, Respon- dent's motivation clearly was to retaliate against its employees for their union activities. Higgins received a wage increase for the week ending October 13, and another wage increase for the week ending December 8.7 As pointed out, in view of the timing of these wage increases and the numerous other unfair labor practices committed by Respondent, the compelling conclusion is that Respondent was motivated by a desire to discourage its employees from union representation, and thus violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. It appears from this record that several years ago Respondent entered into an arrangement with a man named Kepler in order to originate some local TV programs over Channel 9 running through Respondent's system, but Kepler was unable to work matters out and Respondent was forced to invest money in the equipment and "bail him out." Some while later Campomizzi was approached by Blakely and informed that he and Ron Vaux could do the job of running Channel 9 and a temporary agreement was drawn up permitting Vaux and Blakely to operate the channel and they would also be responsible for expenses in connection therewith. A little later Blakely discovered that financially the venture was too much, and Respondent had to pick up some of the expenses. In the summer of 1973 an article of agreement was submitted to Vaux and Blakely wherein they agreed permanently to take over the operation of Channel 9, and although this agreement was duly executed neither Blakely nor Vaux ever accepted the offer. During the period of this agreement Vaux and Blakely were continuing to have financial problems, and Vaux testified he informed Campomizzi that Blakely was not keeping up his part of the bills, and Blakely would make the same accusation about Vaux. Vaux then contacted a third party and attempted to enter into an agreement with this party, but Blakely came to Campomizzi and claimed that Vaux and the third party were trying to force him out, and finally Vaux came to Campomizzi and stated "either Ed takes it or I do, this is the end of it." Respondent argues there is no evidence that Campomizzi in any way denied Blakely the opportunity to participate in Channel, 9, and further maintains that the article of agreement was in the hands of Blakely for signature, and all he had to do was to sign it, along with Vaux, in order to complete the contract. There is no question that these attempts by Blakely and truck during the cold weather r Respondent claims that the payroll record for the first pay increase was made up on the afternoon of October 12-before Campomim had knowledge of union activity and produced testimony through Respondent's Secretary Verne Czap in relation thereto , but I have rejected this contention as I do not credit the testimony in connection therewith . Respondent maintains that the pay raise in December was in keeping with Campomizzi's promise made before any knowledge of union activity and was granted at the employee's request after Higgins complained to Campomizzi that he could not live on $2 .75 an hour. 92 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Vaux to run Channel 9 were in constant financial difficulties, and their ultimate success was somewhat doubtful. However, until the advent of the Union the possibility still existed and up until a few days prior to Thanksgiving 1973, the date here in question, Respondent had never withdrawn its signed article of agreement nor its refusal to go ahead, but when Blakely specifically con- fronted Campomizzi and asked him if he had told Vaux that he (Blakely) would no longer be allowed to have further involvement with Channel 9 because of his union activities, Campomizzi then affirmed that he had made this statement. Under the circumstances this remark and conduct must be deemed a denial of a benefit, and I so find. Respondent argues that Campomizzi had a legitimate reason in requesting Blakely to work on his regularly scheduled afternoon off because the Company is normally busy in November, and Campomizzi was trying to get his new extensions installed. Respondent also points out this was a short week since Thursday was Thanksgiving, and on the following Monday morning Higgins was off for the opening day of the deer season. The General Counsel, of course, does not dispute Respondent's authority to alter its employees' work schedules where Respondent is motivated by lawful considerations, but maintains that the rescheduling here in question was in response to Blakely's union activities. On Tuesday, November 19, Campomizzi ordered Blakely to work on Wednesday afternoon even though Blakely was not scheduled to work that afternoon. There is no adequate showing that any real emergency existed which justified this departure from Blakely's schedule, and, furthermore, Campomizzi's motivation was made plain when he advised Blakely that "this is something that you've got to understand when you seek union representation." Such conduct violates the Act, and I so find. The Company maintains that union activities played no part whatsoever in the decision to discharge Higgins, points out that Respondent has operated its facility at various times with less than two people , and argues that at the time in question there was not enough work for two employees.8 Respondent's contention that it laid off Higgins because of insufficient work to justify the continued employment of a second installer-technician cannot be supported, in its totality, by this record. In establishing the sequence of events it is noted that in December the Company contracted with an independent contractor, Brown and Simmons, to make new installations or hookups.9 When this decision to employ Brown and a Vaux had been a full-time employee until the middle of January when he quit, but it appears that Blakely was the only installer -serviceman from the middle of January until Higgins was mtially hired in June. During this period of employment Higgins worked about 3-1/2 weeks and then quit, as aforestated. A few weeks later Vaux returned on a part-time basis. 9 Camponuzzi testified that in September the Company had extended its cable lines, and immediately thereafter prospective subscribers started calling and inquiring if they would be able to get hookups in time for the up-coming football season and for the holidays . Campomizzi stated that his boss was also after him to get the hookups done as quickly as possible, but that even with two men working the new installations on the extension lines were not yet started He testified that due to these pressures and a desire to get the installations completed before bad weather, he checked into the Simmons was communicated to Blakely and Higgins, they informed Campomizzi they would have liked the work on an overtime basis. Campomizzi stated he did not know they wanted any overtime because he had asked Blakely several times to work overtime and practically all of the times he had refused to do so. In the final analysis, Respondent is contending that by contracting the new hookups to Brown and Simmons it thereby reduced the number of installations to be per- formed by its own employees. However, as pointed out, no mention was ever made to Blakely or Higgins that this subcontracting was going to occur until after the final arrangements for subcontracting had been made and after union activity became well known to Respondent. The Company had subcontracted work on one prior occasion, in 1971, but Respondent had employed only one installer for several months during that year. The circumstances and situation existing in late 1973 shows an increased and continued desire and need for the services offered by Respondent, and while outside help reduced the number of installations to be made by Respondent's employees, there still remained numerous other functions and duties to be performed by employees, and with additional installations these other maintenance and related jobs and duties would also increase under normal circumstances.1° Respondent also subcontracted to Brown and Simmons replacement work of bad cable and transfers of cable to new poles. This work was paid for by the Company in February, March, and April 1974. Higgins stated that he was qualified to do all the work Brown and Simmons performed on these jobs and testified he had gained experience in cable construc- tion from a priorjob with American Electronics. Respondent cites the decreased number of installations in the first 4 months of 1974 in order to show a decline in work sufficient to warrant Higgins' layoff, but these figures must be evaluated in light of the 44 to 49 installations made in December by Brown and Simmons and, further- more, as pointed out by the General Counsel, during comparable periods of 1971 and 1972, Respondent had about the same level of installations, extras and discon- nects, that it had in 1974, and in both 1971 and 1972 Respondent employed two full-time installer-technicians.11 Blakely testified that prior to the discharge here in question, Manager Campomizzi did not perform any maintenance work himself unless he did so when Blakely was on vacation and possibly on a few other occasions. Blakely further stated that after Higgins was laid off, Campomizzi did more maintenance work than before the discharge, and specifically mentioned work on Half Moon Road, Presqusile Street, at the Presbyterian Home, and at possibility of hiring an independent contractor to do this work as he had done once before, and Brown and Simmons were then contacted and started installation on December I 10 Higgins stated he spent about one-third of his time doing installation work, about 25 to 30 percent of his time doing repair work, and from 15 to 20 percent of his time splicing and replacing defective equipment. It appears that the average hookup takes anywhere between 30 minutes to I hour, but considerably less time for a "reconnect " The industry average states that seven or eight hookups should be completed in a day . Respondent's own document reveals that in 1973 the system expanded by 234 installations. Thus, the installer-technicians had a substantial and consequential increase in maintenance duties in 1974 See Reap . Exh. 9. ii Resp. Exh. 7. MOSHANNON VALLEY TV CABLE CO. 93 the new Sears store . Campomizzi denies that he performed any additional work than that which he had been doing in the past, and Respondent Exhibit 8 purports to represent work performed by Campomizzi for customers from August 2, 1971, through April 23, 1974. This exhibit and Respondent Exhibit 7 reveal that from August through October 1971 Blakely was the only installer-technician employed and during this period Campomizzi made 17 installations. Through 1972, when Respondent employed two full-time installer-technicians, Campomizzi reports that he did service work on 19 occasions, and reports that in 1973 he performed service and installation work on about 14 occasions. For 8 months in 1973 the Respondent had either two full-time or one full-time and one part-time installer. In the first 4 months of 1974, Campomizzi performed work on 13 occasions . From these figures the General Counsel summarizes and points out the following, "Thus Campomizzi, who contends that he has not increased his work level, has in fact performed as much service and installation work in the first 4 months of 1974 as he did in the entire 12 months of 1973, and is not significantly below the amount of work he performed during the entire year of 1972. Clearly, Campomizzi has increased his work output since he laid off Higgins, even though he testified that his work level has remained constant." I am in substantial agreement with the General Counsel in his concluding summary. The General Counsel also points out that the permanent layoff here in question served the dual purposes of ridding Respondent of a union sympathizer and also ensuring that the Union would not be certified as the collective-bargain- ing representative of the installer-technicians, inasmuch as the Board will not certify a bargaining agent in a one-man unit. The General Counsel introduced credited testimony through Fred Pizzella is to the effect that in February 1974 Campomizzi told Pizzella he had found a loophole, that he had laid off Higgins, and that a union could not be certified in a one-man unit. It appears that he had also informed Pizzella that Blakely and Higgins were "crazy" for seeking union representation and had further told Pizzella they would not get a union if he had anything to do with it. In summary this record establishes that Respondent, through its manager, Campomizzi, engaged in extensive 8(axl) conduct after learning of the union activities of its employees and including a threat by Campomizzi to discharge Higgins. As pointed out, the timing of the layoff constitutes further evidence of ' discriminatory motivation, -Respondent, which heretofore had never laid off any employee, terminated Higgins less than 2 weeks before the NLRB-conducted election and after Campomizzi had been informed that a one-man unit could not be certified. The record further establishes that the layoff in question occurred at a time when business was increasing and while facilities of the Company were being extended to take in new areas. IV. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. A broad cease-and-desist order is warranted in view of Respon- dent's discriminatory conduct and other violations. It has been found that Respondent unlawfully terminat- ed Danny J. Higgins on December 28, 1973. It will therefore be recommended that Respondent offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his former position, or if such position no longer exists to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his rights and privileges, and to make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him by payment of a sum equal to that which he would normally have earned, absent the discrimination, from the date of the discrimination to the date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement, with backpay and interest computed in accordance with the Board's estab- lished standards.13 It will be -further recommended that Respondent preserve and make available to the Board, upon request, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary and useful to determine the amount of backpay and the right to reinstatement under the terms of these recommendations.14 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent 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. By discharging or permanently laying off Danny J. Higgins on December 28, 1973, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act. 4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, as enumerated herein, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(axl) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of - Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the above findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: is Pizzella is employed as a television and radio repairman at a store located on the same block as Respondent's office, and he and Campomiui frequently visit each other. 13 F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950); Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). 14 In accordance with my findings the challenged ballot of Higgins should now be counted. 94 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDER 15 Respondent, Moshannon Valley TV Cable Co., Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in the Union, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging employees or otherwise discriminating against them in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (b) Interrogating employees concerning their union activities, memberships, sympathies, and the identification of employees signing authorization cards. (c) Threatening employees with discharge or loss of employment because of union activities. (d) Withdrawing, discontinuing, or cancelling benefits and privileges because of the union activities of its employees. (e) Granting wage increases in order to discourage union activities. (f) Denying employees their regular scheduled time off because of union activities. (g) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self- organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organiza- tion, including the above-named organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Danny J. Higgins immediate and full reinstatement to his former job or, if such job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority, if any, or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him 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 analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this recommended Order. (c) Post at its place of business copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 16 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director of Region 6, 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, 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 6, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. 15 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. is In the event 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 read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government 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 interrogate our employees concerning their union activities, memberships, sympathies, nor inquire as to the identification of employees signing authorization cards. WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge or loss of employment because of union activities. WE WILL NOT withdraw, discontinue, or cancel any benefits or privileges because of union activities. WE WILL NOT grant wage increases to employees in order to discourage their union activities. WE WILL NOT deny employees their regular sched- uled time off because of the union activities. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join or assist any labor organization, including the Union herein, to bargain collectively 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. WE WILL OFFER to Danny J. Higgins his former job or, if such job no longer exists, a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority, if any, or other rights and privileges, and WE WILL pay him for any loss of pay he suffered by reason of our discrimination against him together with interest thereon. MosHANNON VALLEY TV CABLE Co., INC.