Bell & Howell Schools, Inc.

BELL & HOWELL SCHOOLS Bell & Howell Schools, Inc. and Donald R. Musil. Case 18-CA-4657 October 22, 1976 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND WALTHER On May 11, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Peter E. Donnelly issued the attached Decision in this pro- ceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions 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 I of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified.2 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Bell & Howell Schools, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, 'its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, as modified below: In the last sentence of paragraph 2(d) of the Ad- ministrative Law Judge's recommended Order, delete the period after the words "resident study sales force" and add the words "and to all former home study sales representatives who were employed as of January 20, 1976." i In the absence of exceptions thereto, Chairman Murphy would adopt, pro forma, the Administrative Law Judge's findings that Corning's statement to Mrs Musil did not violate Sec 8(a)(l) of the Act. 2 Contrary to the Administrative Law Judge, we find that copies of the proposed notice to employees should be mailed to all former home study sales representatives as well as to the resident sales representatives. The record shows that Respondent closed down its home study operation for economic reasons in January 1976, and the entire home study sales force was thereafter terminated. It is our customary procedure when a business has ceased operations to mail copies of our notices to all employees who were employed at the time the unlawful conduct occurred in order to elimi- nate, to the extent possible, the effects of the unfair labor practices upon the individuals who were exposed to them. See, e.g, Southland Manufacturing Corp., 157 NLRB 1356, 1357-58 (1966), Great Leopard Market Corporation, Inc, d/b/a/ King Jack's Foodarama, 150 NLRB 1384, 1386 (1965). Accord- ingly, we shall require Respondent to mail a signed copy of the notice to employees to all those home study sales representatives. who were on its payroll at the time the home study operation was terminated in January 1976. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE 601 PETER E. DONNELLY, Administrative Law Judge: The original charge herein was filed on August 5, 1975, by Don- ald R. Musil, an individual. An amended charge was filed by Musil on October 3, 1975, and a complaint thereon was issued by the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela- tions Board on October 31, 1975, alleging violations of Sec- tion 8(a)(1),(3), and (4) of the Act by Bell & Howell Schools, Inc., herein called Respondent or Employer. An answer was timely- filed by Respondent on November 12, 1975. Pursuant to notice a hearing was held before me at Minneapolis, Minnesota, on January 27, 28, and 29, 1976. Briefs have been timely filed by General Counsel and Re- spondent which have been duly considered. FINDINGS OF FACT I. EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS The Employer is an Illinois corporation engaged in the operation of technical schools and correspondence courses. During the year ending December 31, 1974, Employer in the course and conduct of its business operations derived gross revenues in excess of $1 million. During the same penod of time the Employer, in the course and conduct of its business operations sold goods valued in excess of $1 million of which goods valued in excess of $50,000 were shipped from the Employer's facili- ties within the State of Illinois directly to points outside the State of Illinois. During this same penod, the Employer purchased goods valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped to and received by the Employer within the State of Illinois directly from points outside the State of Illinois. The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that the Employer is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. LABOR ORGANIZATION The complaint alleges, Respondent in its answer admits, and I find that International Brotherhood of Teamsters and/or Minnesota Joint Council No. 32, is a labor organi- zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The complaint alleges that on or about August 4, 1975, Respondent discharged Donald R. Musil for having en- gaged in union activity and for having given testimony un- der the Act in a previous unfair labor practice case in viola- tion of Section 8(a)(3) and (4) of the Act. Further, that by threatening and coercing Musil, Respondent violated Sec- tion 8(a)(1) of the Act. 226 NLRB No. 94 602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD A, Facts i Donald R. Musil was employed by Respondent as a sales representative from February 1970 until August 4, 1975. His immediate supervisor was Howard Corning, re- gional sales manager, who in turn reported to Gerald Hau- ser, western zone sales manager. Hauser reported to Stuart A. Cohen, vice president for sales. It was Musil's job to obtain enrollments for home study courses in schools oper- ated by the Employer in several counties which included the city of St. Paul, Minnesota. Musil was paid on a straight commission basis with no guarantee. - In January 1974, a change in company policy enabled other safesrhen to sell'in those territories which had previ- ously been the exclusive preservelof the individual sales- men. This created some dissatisfaction which'lead Musil, and some other salesmen including Marvin Prudhon and Leo Zuroski, to discuss unionization in order to improve their lot. Prudhon lead the effort and contacted the Union in this regard. Subsequently Prudhon was terminated .2 In- cident to Prudhon's hearing, in late October or early March, both Musil and his wife were interviewed by an attorney for Respondent. During the course of his inter- view, Musil told the attorney that they [the sales represen- tatives] had talked about organizing a union to help them with their grievances. Further, that he was aware of Prudho,n's union activity and that he supported it. Upon inquiry Musil admitted having given a statement to the Board in connection with the matter and that the Board agent had asked him to testify at the hearing if `one were held. Mrs. Musil told the attorney that she knew about Prudhon's union activity and expressed her view that the union would "probably be a good idea." At the hearing on November 5, 1974, both Musil and his wife were subpe- naed to appear by the General Counsel. They appeared at the hearing and sat together at the General Counsel's table along with Prudhon, Zuroski, and the attorney. Musil, testi- fied that Howard Corning and two other company, repre- sentatives were seated across the room in the vicinity of the Employer's counsel table. On December 30 or 31, 1974, Coming and Musil met to discuss the past year and plan for the next year. In his reflections about the past year, Corning alluded to the "un- fortunate things" with the Board and that he did not like seeing Musil, "on the other side of the fence" but that bygones should be bygones. In March 1975, while making a work report by telephone to Corning, the matter of the Prttdhon case was raised again by Corning who said "how do you think I felt with you on the other side of the fence? Do you realize that this could have been your job but it i To the extent that conflicts exist between the testimony of Corning and either Musil or his wife as to their conversations , I credit Musil and his wife In making these credibility resolutions, I note particularly that most of their testimony is undisputed and that Musil and his wife testified in substantial detail as to these conversations, while Corriing's testimony reflects little more than a general denial that he did not discuss a union with them. 2 This termination resulted in the filing of an 8(a)(1) and (3) charge- ( Vase 18-CA-4270) and the issuance of a complaint. This case- was settled at hearing on November 5, 1974, in the presence of an Administrative Law Judge, but prior to the opening of the hearing . These facts were stipulated by the parties 3 Musil testified that Cohen may have been there but he is not certain wasn't. Doyou .know it could have been my job but it wasn't." He accused Musil of continuing to see Prudhon saying "You're down in sales. You're negative. You've got to be seeing him. Stay away from that man. He'll poison your mind." Musil denied seeing" Prudhon, but in fact he had met at various times, about every other week since the date of the November 4'hearing with both Prudhon and Zuroski, where they continued to discuss union organiza- tion of the Employer. In mid-March 1975, Corning called Musil, but in his ab- sence spoke to Mrs. Musil. A discussion ensued over some leads that Musil had been requested to work in the Green Bay, Wisconsin, area: She complained that the leads were stale and already had been worked and argued that it was unfair. Corning mentioned Prudhon and this conversation, telling her that the reason for Musil's poor production and attitude was because he was talking to Prudhon. Like Mu- sil, Mrs. Musil denied that he was seeing Prudhon. Corning also commented "I guess your union business didn't do you any good, Gail." Further, "You just don't organize salesmen, especially on commission" to which Mrs. Musil responded "Maybe we could get a vacation if we had a union." Because she was concerned about her husband's position, she urged him to work the leads anyway and he did. From March 1975 until the end of July 1975, during work report telephone conversations with Corning, the matter of Prudhon was raised by Corning in some six or eight conversations, asking such questions as whether or not Prudhon was working or if Prudhon was still in the Union, and Musil continued to deny that he was seeing Prudhon: On July 26, 1975, Musil taped two work report telephone conversations with Coming.' Musil testified that he taped some of his conversations with Corning to avoid misunder- standings with Corning over what had been said. The taped conversation included unfavorable references to Musil's "attitude." At another point Corning created a hy- pothetical situation wherein Zuroski, Hoffman, and Musil were in a motel room. Corning suggested that in such 'a private conversation these men would complain about the Company. In a second taped conversation on this date, Musil declined the Company's request to have him work leads in the Duluth area. Musil next spoke to Corning in another work report con- versation on August 2, 1975, werein Corning asked him to come to Coming's home in Hudson, Wisconsin. An ap- pointment was made for Monday, August 4, 1976. Musil appeared and was told by Corning that he was being dis- charged because of a low conversion rate and low produc- tion. Musil protested, but was told that this was being done on orders from Hauser. Corning also gave Musil the oppor- tunity to"resign, which Musil declined. With respect to Musil's work record, it appears that since 4 Musil testified that another taped conversation played at the hearing was made on July 20, 1975 Subsequent testimony established and Musil conceded that this date was not accurate and the actual date was about a year earlier. Counsel for the Respondent suggests that Musil's erroneous testimony was fraudulent and affects his credibility I do not agree Nothing on the record herein indicates that Musil intentionally tied about the date and I do not discredit his testimony on that account ,BELL& HOWELL SCHOOLS 603 the time of his employment in February 1970, Musil's rounded earning figures were as follows: February through December 1970-$9,108; 1971-$20,718; 1972-$33,857; 1973-$44.246; 1974-$48,620; January I through August 4, 1975-$30,663. Earnings are derived from student en- rollments in home study courses which take two forms first, those enrollments which are the results of leads fur- nished to the sales representative by the Employer, for ex- ample, responses to magazine ads; second, by personal de- velopment enrollments (PD's), which are secured through the efforts of the sales representative without the assistance of the Employer. The record shows that as, late as December 30, 1974, Respondent was well pleased with Mush's performance. On December 30, 1974, Corning wrote to Musil as fol- lows: Another year has rolled around and you and I are still working together, and I'm very grateful and glad that we are. In reviewing the figures of 1974, Y find that your professional performance in production and P.D.'s, plays a large part in the region 14-20 being as high on the standings as it is. Especially as I glance at the figures and see for the month of September you wrote 38 enrollments and 21 P.D.'s. This shows with- out a doubt, the professional salesman that you are. Thank you very much Don. I appreciate the effort and I'm sure you and your family appreciate the type of income that you received in 1974. I'm sure it will be in the nations top 10%. I want to further add in this letter Don, the fine mutu- al trust and understanding and working relationship we both enjoy. I feel very confident that 1975 will be a bigger and better year for both of us in this business. On May 20, 1975, in a letter concerning production for the month of April 1975, to all sales representatives in his region, Corning wrote, inter alia, "Don Musil should also be specially mentioned here, as he placed 10th in the P.D. department, nationwide. Gentlemen, all of you can feel proud to be a member of the professional Sales Force of Midwest region 14-20. Most everyone of you is doing a great job and I'm proud of you." The statistical summary which followed showed that Musil had 14 PD's and a total production of 23 enrollments. As noted earlier, there were some 280 sales representa- tives in the Employer's national organization. By letter dat- ed July 10, 1975, from Cohen to the entire sales force, the top PD producers were listed for the month of June 1975; Musil was tied for ninth place in the standings nationwide. Similar letters established that for 6 of the 10 months preceding his discharge, ' Musil was ranked in the top 10 nationwide in PD's. Company sales records also show that Musil's overall conversion rate was better in the 24-week period ending July 17, 1975, than it had been in the same period ending July 18, 1974.5 5 Cohen disputes the accuracy of these company records However, his own testimony shows that they were approved by top management, as well as being compiled, published, and distributed throughout management dur- ing the entire life of the operation In these circumstances, I find Cohen's disavowal unconvincing Cohen testified that sales representatives had a standard of 18 enrollments per month, and an annual conversion rate standard of 12 percent. Cohen further testified that Musil did not meet these standards, since his conversion rate for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975, was only 8.8 percent and 9.3 percent for the first quarter of 1975. Cohen states that Musil did not "bonus," i.e., attain the 18 enroll- ments quota in May, turning in only 15 enrollments. He had 15 enrollments in June and 12 enrollments in July 1975. Musil's failure to bonus in June caused Cohen to contact Corning. According to Cohen, he told Corning that he wanted Musil put on probation. Corning recalls the con- versation but does not remember being told to put Musil on probation. Cohen told Corning that he might have to terminate Musil if he failed to bonus in July. Upon Musil's failure to bonus in July, Cohen testified that he called Hau- ser on July 31 and told him that he wanted Musil terminat- ed saying, "He did not reach his quota for the third consec- utive month and his conversion. I cannot possibly justify keeping him on. He_hasn't bonu$ed for three consecutive months and I can't justify his conversion." He told Hauser he wanted Corning to call him on Saturday, August 2, 1975. Corning -called and was told to terminate Musil, which Corning did on August 4, 1975. B. Discussion and Analysis An objective evaluation of the record herein discloses that, while Musil did not make the original union contacts in this situation, he was a supporter of the efforts that were made to organize Respondent. The record also satisfacto- rily establishes that Respondent was aware of these sympa- thies, particularly since Musil openly displayed them dur- ing an interview with Respondent's attorney in connection with a prior unfair labor practice charge involving Respon- dent. In addition, his wife made her prounion feelings known at the same time. Musil's presence at the hearing in the Prudhon unfair labor practice case is further evidence of his continuing support for and sympathy with the orga- nizational effort. Corning's remarks indicating that he dis- liked seeing Musil "on the other side of the fence," is an obvious reference to the Prudhon unfair labor practice case, and supports the conclusion that the Company was aware of Musil's sentiments and further that° Respondent was displeased with Musil's position. Thereafter Corning continued' to display a lively interest in Musil's contacts with Prudhon, including admonishing Musil about contin- uing to see Prudhon. The record herein fully supports a finding that the Company was aware that Musil was a sup- porter of the organizing effort and that Respondent be- lieved, quite correctly, that Musil was maintaining his con- tacts with Prudhon, the leader of this effort, such contacts continuing through the period immediately preceding his discharge. With respect to the motivation for Musil's discharge, Re- spondent contends that his low conversion rate and low production caused Musil's discharge. In support of this po- sition Respondent points to Musil's failure to "bonus" for 3 months in a row as justification, as well as a substandard 604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD conversion rate. However, it is important to note that, while these quotas or standards are advanced by Respon- dent as the standards to which all sales representatives were required to conform, there is little in the record to disclose how these standards were arrived at or, more im- portantly, the extent to which the standards-were attained by other salesmen, or the extent to which the standards were attained by other salesmen, or the extent to which other sales representatives were disciplined for failing to meet the standards. This is a significant unknown factor, in view of the drastic measures taken by Respondent against Musil for his failure to meet such standards, particularly over a relative short period of time. In this connection it should also be noted that Respondent itself concedes that the normal procedure followed in cases where a sales repre- sentative fails to meet the standards is a 1-month proba- tion. This procedure was not followed in Musil's case. Mu- sil was summarily dismissed without notice. Respondent in its-brief-explains that the failure to put Musil on probation was the result of a breakdown in communications between Cohen and Coming. I find this explanation unconvincing inasmuch as a suspension-still could have'been meted out to Musil at any time prior to his discharge.'It strains credu- lity to believe that an established sales representative with 5 years of satisfactory service would be summarily dis- missed when probation would have been the normal cor- rective measure in such circumstances. Respondent further contends that the time lapse from approximately October 1974, when Respondent became aware of Musil's union sentiments through interviews with Respondent's attorney, and the time of Musil's discharge on August 4, 1975, negates the existence of any illegal mo- tivation. I do not agree, particularly in view of Corning's several conversations with Musil alluding to Prudhon and the Union showing that Respondent retained a lively inter- est in the organizational matter and that Corning retained unpleasant recollections of Musil's position "on the other side of the fence." There are other factors which make Respondent's dis- charge of Musil appear extraordinary. First, it was sum- mertime, and, as Musil testified and Cohen concedes, sum- mer months were the least productive months of the year with respect to enrollments, and it would appear to be nor- mal for Musil to experience some reduction in production during those months. Moreover, it appears that Musil had 26 enrollments in January 1975, 22 in February 1975, 20 in March 1975, and 25 in April 1975. Thus, it appears that during the calendar year 1975, for the 7 months prior to his discharge, Musil averaged 19-plus enrollments per month, obviously an average in excess of the monthly standard. Also, while the Employer cites Musil's poor performance as justification for his discharge, the record recites several occasions during the period preceding his discharge when the Employer expressed in various writings, as noted above, its satisfaction with Musil's work performance. Based on the entire record herein, it is my opinion that Mustl's 5-year work,record with this Employer established him, at the least, as a competent sales representative, and even assunung that his production did decline somewhat before his discharge, there are mitigating factors to explain it. Indeed, Cohen concedes that performance standards were not strictly applied regardless of circumstances. Ac- cordingly, I cannot conclude that Musil's work perfor- mance was the reason for his discharge, but rather that the allegation of poor production was a cloak designed to cam- ouflage Respondent's discriminatory motivation and I con- clude that, by discharging Musil, Respondent violated Sec- tion 8(a)(3) of the Act. With respect to the allegation of an- 8(a)(4) violation, the record discloses not only that Musil attended a scheduled unfair labor practice hearing under Board subpena in the Prudhon case, but also that Respondent's attorney had previously interviewed him and was aware of his prounion sentiments in the matter, also, he had ' been asked by a National Labor Relations Board attorney to testify at the unfair labor practice hearing. Thereafter, Corning, in con- versation with Musil, alluded to Musil's position "on the other side of the fence" in the prior Board matter. In my opinion, these obvious references by Corning to the prior Board matter, and the entire record herein, disclose that, in addition to having been, discriminatorily motivated within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, there was anoth- er motivating factor behind Musil's discharge and it was Musil's participation in, preparation for, and attendance at the prior unfair labor practice hearing and the fact that the hearing was never actually begun does not compel a differ- ent result. N.L.R.B. v. Robert Scrivener, d/b/a A A Elec- tric Company, 405 U.S. 117 (1972). The inhibiting effects intended to be proscribed by Section 8(a)(4) of the Act are not dissipated simply because the hearing had not actually commenced. In these circumstances , I conclude that Re- spondent has violated both Section 8(a)(3) and (4) of the Act. C. 8(a)(1) Allegations With respect to the alleged 8(a)(1) threat by Corning to Musil in a March 1975 telephone conversation, I conclude, in crediting Musil, as noted above, that the statements out- lined above were in fact made by Corning. Also I conclude that the statements were coercive. There is, some merit to Respondent's argument that the remarks had no "current relevance." However, on balance I find the remarks, in context of the entire conversation, inhibiting as to any fu- ture organizational activity and they were, in effect, a veiled threat to Musil's job security by making it clear that Respondent would not tolerate organizational efforts. Such statements violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The additional 8(a)(1) allegation contained in the com- plaint alleges threats to Musil through his wife. This con- versation is outlined above. Essentially, this was a conver- sation between Corning and Mrs. Musil wherein Corning is alleged in the complaint to have told her that "the employ- ee [Musil] was assigned poor sales leads because of the employee's [Musil's] activities for and on behalf of the Union." While the matter of leads and the Union were both mentioned in this conversation, I cannot conclude that they were so related as to be coercive. Accordingly, I cannot conclude that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) as to that allegation of the complaint. BELL & HOWELL SCHOOLS 605 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent as set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with Respondent's opera- tion described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and com- merce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. dence to indicate any prospect of reemployment. However, in my opinion, the home study sales operation and the resident study operations are sufficiently related to warrant remedial relief to provide for copies of the notice being sent by Respondent to all (approximately 150) sales repre- sentatives nationwide in the resident study program, and I shall so recommend. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and con- clusions, and upon the entire record in this case, I hereby make the following: V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recom- mend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. I have found that Respondent discharged Donald R. Musil for reasons which offended the provisions of Section 8(a)(3) and (4) of the Act. I shall therefore recommend that Respondent make him whole for any loss of pay which he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination prac- ticed against-him. The backpay provided for herein shall be computed in accordance with the Board's formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum comput- ed in the manner prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). In framing a remedy in the instant case, it is my inten- tion to recommend restoring Musil to all the entitlements accruing to him, absent Respondent's discrimination. In other words, all that he would have been entitled to if the employment relationship had not been discrmunatorily severed and he had continued as an employee of Respon- dent. It appears that on or about January 20, 1976, the entire home study sales operation was terminated and all the approximately 280 sales representatives who were em- ployed in that operation were terminated. There is nothing in the record to suggest that Musil would have been em- ployed by Respondent beyond that date, nor on the record herein that he would have been offered employment as a sales representative in the resident study operation. Ac- cordingly, I shall recommend that Respondent's backpay obligation terminate as of January 20, 1976. However, I shall not recommend his reinstatement as a sales represen- tative in Respondent's resident study operation, since noth- ing in the record suggests that he would have been offered such employment upon the cessation of the home study operation absent his discriminatory discharge. I shall, how- ever, recommend that Musil's name be placed on a prefer- ential hiring list for employment by Respondent in the event that Respondent resumes its home study sales opera- tion. General Counsel requests that the remedy also include a provision requiring that Respondent mail copies of the no- tice herein to all salesmen in Respondent's midwest region. To the extent that this is a request for mailing notices to the terminated group of home study sales representatives, I shall not so recommend, since it appears to me to be a useless expenditure of time and resources to send notices to legitimately terminated employees where there is no evi- CONCLUSIONS OF LAw 1. Respondent is an Employer 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 interfering with, restraining, and coercing employ- ees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. By discharging and refusing to reinstate Donald R. Musil because of his sympathies with and activities on be- half of the Union, and because he gave testimony to a Board agent and attended an unfair labor practice hearing as a witness for the Board, Respondent has violated Sec- tion 8(a)(3), (4), and (1) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER6 The Respondent, Bell & Howell Schools, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening employees in order to discourage mem- bership in and activities on behalf of International Broth- erhood of Teamsters and/or Minnesota Joint Council No. 32, or any other labor organization. (b) Discharging employees, thereby discriminating in re- gard to their hire and tenure of employment, in order to discourage membership in International Brotherhood of Teamsters and/or Minnesota Joint Council No. 32, or any other labor organization, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. (c) Discharging employees thereby discriminating in re- gard to their hire and tenure of employment because of having given testimony to a Board agent and attending an unfair labor practice hearing as a witness for the Board in violation of Section 8(a)(4) of the Act. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaran- teed in Section 7 of the Act. 6 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 606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. Take the following affirmative action, which I find is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Make Donald R. Musil whole for any loss of ;pay which he may have suffered as a result of the discrimina- tion practiced against him in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Place Donald R. Musil on a preferential hiring list for employment in the event that Respondent resumes its home study student enrollment operation and employs sales representatives therein. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay- roll records, social security records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due herein. (d) Post at its facilities,at 4141 West Belmont Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, and 209 West Jackson Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen- dix." 7 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 18, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative, 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 to in- sure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In addition, Respondent shall mail one signed copy of the attached notice marked "Appen- dix" to each sales representative employed in Respondent's resident study sales force. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 18, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. 7 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 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 threaten employees in order to discour- age membership in and activities on behalf of Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters and/or Minnesota Joint Council No. 32. WE WILL NOT discharge employees thereby discrimi- nating in regard to their hire and tenure of employ- ment in order to discourage membership in Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters and/or Minnesota Joint Council No. 32, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT discharge employees thereby discrimi- nating in regard to their hire and tenure of employ- ment because of having given testimony and attending an unfair labor practice hearing as a witness for the Board. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. - WE WILL make Donald R. Musil whole for any loss of pay which he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination practiced against him in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "'The Remedy." WE WILL place Donald R. Musil on a preferential hiring list for employment'in the event that we resume our home study student enrollment operation and em- ploy sales representatives therein. All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above- named, or any other labor organization. BELL & HOWELL SCHOOLS, INC.