Gillette's, The Country Place

GILLETTE'S, THE COUNTRY PLACE Gillette's, The Country Place and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local 200, AFL-CIO. Case 8-CA-9624 November 8, 1976 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, PENELLO, AND WALTHER On June 30, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Paul E. Weil issued the attached Decision in this proceed- ing. 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 briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as herein 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, as modified below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Gillette's, The Country Place, Warren, Ohio, its offi- cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so modified: 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(c): "(c) In any other manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act." 1 In the I1th paragraph of section III of his Decision. the Administrative Law Judge states, " Day said that she could take a leave of absence but there would be no guarantee that she would have a job when she came back " What the record reflects is that Scott asked Day about a possible leave of absence , to which Day responded that she could not guarantee Scott's job when she got back In the fourth line of the 13th paragraph of the same section , the Adminis- trative Law Judge refers to Mrs Stowe, when he obviously meant Mr Stowe (Scott's fiance at the time of the events herein) However, in the next sen- tence, he apparently is relating testimony of Mr Stowe, who in fact did not testify in this proceeding Despite these minor discrepancies in the Administrative Law Judge's reci- tation of the record evidence , we find that the record as a whole supports the violations found herein 2 When violations found by the Board go to the very heart of the Act as do the violations of Sec 8 (a)(3) found herein, the Board issues a "broad order," proscribing interference with Sec 7 rights "in any other manner." rather than "in any like or related manner," as the Administrative Law Judge did here We will therefore modify his recommended Order to this extent DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE 819 PAUL E. WEIL, Administrative Law Judge- On November 21, 1975, Amalgamated Meatcutters and Butcher Work- men of North America, Local 200, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the Union, filed with the Regional Director of Re- gion 8 of the National Labor Relations Board, hereinafter called the Board, a charge alleging that Gillette's, The Country Place, hereinafter called the Respondent, violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act by the termination of two employees, Patricia Johnson and Deborah Scott, because of their activities on behalf of the Union. On December 31, 1975, the Acting Regional Direc- tor, on behalf of the Board's General Counsel, issued a complaint and notice of hearing alleging that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by the termina- tion of Johnson and Scott, and further violated Section 8(a)(1) by telling an employee that she could not have a vacation because the Union was "in" and that Respondent would strictly adhere to its policy book. By its duly filed answer Respondent admitted the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint but denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. On the issues thus joined the matter came on for hearing before me at Warren, Ohio, on Tuesday, April 13, 1976. All parties were present and represented by counsel and had an opportunity to call and examine wit- nesses and to adduce relevant and material evidence. After the close of the hearing, briefs were filed by the General Counsel and by Respondent. On the entire record of this case and in consideration of the briefs, I make the follow- ing: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent is an Ohio corporation engaged in the oper- ation of a proprietary nursing home offering extended nursing care at a facility located in Warren, Ohio. Respon- dent annually receives gross revenue in excess of $100,000 and receives goods and services valued in excess of $5,000 directly from points located outside the State of Ohio. Re- spondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Background Respondent operates a nursing home in Warren, Ohio, employing between 125 and 150 persons. Prior to Septem- 226 NLRB No. 125 820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ber 1, 1975,1 the Home was owned and operated by Mssrs. Stein and Potts. On September 1, Kern Enterprises, which operates six other nursing homes, took over the manage- ment of Respondent's Home. Under the agreement pur- suant to which Kern took over the Home , Mrs. Day, who was to become the administrator commencing September 1, started working at the Home familiarizing herself with the staff and plant and preparing for the accession of Kern Enterprises. Sometime before July 1, the Union commenced an orga- nizing campaign at the Home which resulted in a petition for an election being filed with the Board shortly before September 1. On October 15, an election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election. The two alleged discnminatees were the Union's observers at the election? On October 16 Johnson was dis- charged and on November 4 Scott was discharged . Objec- tions were filed on October 20 by Respondent . The Re- gional Director issued a Report on Objections on Novem- ber 20 recommending that the Union be certified. On No- vember 26 Respondent filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report and on February 20, 1976 , the Board adopted the Regional Director's recommendations and certified the Union as the collective-bargaining representa- tive of the employees . The discharges of Scott and Johnson form the central issues in the instant case. A. The Discharge of Patricia Johnson Patricia Johnson had been employed at the Home for 5 years, first in housekeeping and in the last year as a nurses aide, one of 60 to 70. In the 5 years of her employment prior to September 30, 1975, she had never received any reprimands or warnings nor had been disciplined for any reason. On September 29 Johnson, who had asked for that day off and had been refused, did not show up for work. Her sister called in well before she was scheduled to go to work and reported that she had not returned from her trip out of town and could not make it in on time . The follow- ing day Johnson was given a written warning. On October 14 a preelection conference was conducted by the Board's field examiner, Mrs. Kathryn Ballard, at which representatives of the Union and Respondent were present as well as the observers for the election the follow- ing day. During the preelection conference Johnson in- formed the union agent , James Pasquay, that she had to work the following day and asked if she could be relieved because of the scheduling of the election between 5 and 6 a.m. and 2 to 3:30 p.m. Johnson was scheduled to work from 3 to 11 p.m. Pasquay suggested to Mrs. Day, the ad- ministrator, that Johnson be given the shift off the follow- ing day and according to Pasquay's testimony Mrs. Day stated that there would be no problem about getting a re- placement for Johnson and that she could have the shift off. Day testified that she said she would try to make ar- rangements for a replacement but if she could not find someone to replace Johnson, Johnson would have to work 1 All dates hereinafter are in the year 1975 unless otherwise noted 2 The union organization was accomplished primarily by the efforts of four employees, the two alleged discriminatees and two others The others both left Respondent's employ in September as scheduled. Johnson testified that Day stated that John- son should have let her know earlier that she could have the day off. Jack Campbell, another union agent , testified that Mrs. Day turned to Mr. Kern, the manager of the enterprise , and they had a conversation among themselves after which Mrs. Day stated that there would be no prob- lem about releasing Patricia Johnson from her duties, that one of the oncall girls would be called in. I credit the testimony of Campbell who appeared to have the best recollection of the incident and whom I find other- wise credible . I specifically discredit Mrs. Day, whose de- meanor on the witness stand and evasiveness under cross- examination convinced me that her testimony was worthy of little or no credit. After the preelection conference Mrs. Johnson went to work and worked until about 10 p.m. At this time all of the patients had been put to bed and all of the work on the ward had been completed except conducting a bed check with the employees on the third shift when they arrived. Johnson went to the floor nurse and asked her if she could go home, stating that she felt a pain in her left breast. The floor nurse told her she should see a doctor and Johnson informed the nurse that she had an appointment with the doctor the following month , the earliest appointment she could get . The floor nurse told Johnson she could leave early and so reported on her evening report . Johnson went home and returned to the Home at 4:30 the following morning as a passenger in Miss Scott's automobile to pre- pare for the election which commenced at 5. After the morning session was completed Mrs. Johnson stayed around the nursing home until about 11 , at which time she left for lunch and returned shortly before 2 when the polls were to reopen As she and Miss Scott were walking to- ward the polls Johnson was informed that Mrs. Matson, the director of nurses, wanted to see her. Johnson went to Matson's office , where Mrs. Matson told her that she had been trying to call her at her home to bring her uniform to work . Johnson responded that she was scheduled off that day and that she had to hurry to the election and would get back to her on the matter. Johnson, together with Scott, went on to the polling place where they met Campbell and Pasquay and told them about Johnson's interview with Mrs. Matson . Pasquay said "wait until after the election and we'll see about it." Scott and Johnson assisted in the counting of the ballots and, when it was determined that the Union had won the election , hugged each other and otherwise evidenced their joy. According to their testimony Mrs. Day turned red and looked angry. When the count was completed and the cer- tifications of the election signed , Pasquay told Mrs. Day that Johnson had been told to go to work and reminded her that she had told Johnson the day before that she could have the day off. Day answered that she said that if she could find a replacement Johnson could have the day off and that she was more concerned about the welfare of her patients . Pasquay argued that Johnson had been at the nursing home since 4:30 that morning and had worked the night before and that she was too tired to work . According to Day, Pasquay also said that Johnson was sick. At any rate Day answered that if Johnson did not go to work she would have to receive a warning slip. This was relayed to GILLETTE'S, THE COUNTRY PLACE Johnson by Pasquay; she said that since she only had one warning she would go home, which she did. The following day, October 16, when Johnson came in to work Mrs. Day asked her to come to her office. Johnson went to Day's office and Day handed her two warning slips and a termination notice. One of the warning slips, dated October 15, states "employee left at 10:03 p.m. 10/14-75 c/o Lt. breast pain then later stated to Mrs. Sines `I left early because I have to get up early.' " The warning slip also says "falsified report of illness." The second warning slip stated "did not report off within 3 hours. Employee did not follow policy by reporting off within 3 hours prior to shift." The separation notice states "Employee has accumulated three written warnings within 6 months. According to our policy this is automatic termi- nation." Without saying anything Johnson took the three slips, left Day's office, clocked out, and went home. B. The Termination of Deborah Scott 3 In July 1975 Deborah Scott went to the office of Mrs. Matson and asked for permission to take her vacation commencing November 30 for 2 weeks. Mrs. Matson in- quired why she wanted to take it then and Scott stated that she planned to be married, whereupon Matson agreed that she could take her vacation at that time. Matson testified that she told Scott that it was too far in the future for her to give her any answer and that she did not refuse the request at that time. The employee handbook provides that re- quests for vacations are to be made as early as possible to provide ample time for scheduling. On August 25 Scott told the new administrator, Mrs. Day, that Matson had agreed that she could have 2 weeks' leave in December. Day asked why she wanted leave at that time and Scott told her that she was being married. Day said that in that event she could have leave at that time and she should tell Mrs. Matson so that she could schedule it. The following day Scott informed Mrs. Matson that Day had approved the leave for December and that evening ordered the wedding invitations bearing that date.' On October 30, when the schedule for the month of No- vember was posted, Scott found that she was not scheduled off commencing November 30 and went to Day, reminding her that Day had agreed she could take off the first 2 weeks. Day informed Scott that she could not take her vacation in December because Respondent has a rule against vacations during the month of December, and, ac- cording to Scott's testimony, said "since the Union was voted in we have to go by the policy book." Scott expressed her disappointment and suggested that she could take a leave of absence. Day said that she could take a leave of absence but there would be no guarantee that she would have a job when she came back. Scott then suggested that she could at least have a 4-day weekend and Day answered that that could probably be worked out. Day's story is approximately the same except that she 3 Deborah Scott is now Deborah Stowe, she is referred to herein as Debo- rah Scott, her name during all of the relevant period of time. 4 Matson also testified that she did not pass on Scott's request for vaca- tion until the middle of October. 821 denied stating that the fact that the Union was voted in had anything to do with the decision. On November 3 Scott was met at the Home by her fi- ance, who took it upon himself to try to change Day's deci- sion. He went in to Day's office, leaving Scott in the auto- mobile, and met with Day who was adamant that leave would not be granted in December. Mr. Stowe then went to Kern's office and argued with him. According to his testimony, Kern also related that Respondent had to en- force the policy strictly because the Union had been voted in. When Mr. Stowe did not return, Scott went into the building and waited outside Kern's office for him. When Stowe came out he mentioned Kern had said something about Scott being able to take a vacation during her anniv- ersary year which runs from May to May. Scott recalled that the policy book refers to the calendar year and went and got the policy book. She and her fiance went back to Kern's office, knocked on the door, and went in. Scott asked Kern how she could take her vacation in the calen- dar year if she could not take it in November and was not allowed to take it during December. Kern answered that she could take it during the anniversary year and she an- swered "if you meant the anniversary year you should have put the anniversary year in the policy book." By this time, obviously Miss Scott had lost her temper. She turned to Mrs. Day, who came into the office after her, and asked her if she went back to work 2 days after she was married. Mrs. Day did not answer and Scott turned and walked out of the office slamming the door behind her. She was promptly discharged for insubordination. Kern stated that it was his sole decision to discharge her and that he considered her actions and her slamming of the door insubordination of the worst kind. According to Kern's testimony, he made no mention of the Union during this exchange. According to Scott's testi- mony, Kern stated that, since the Union was voted in, Re- spondent had to go by the policy book 100 percent and the policy was that no vacations were to be taken in December so she could not take her vacation then. She rejoined, ask- ing how the Union was getting along over at Imperial and Kern answered that he had not been over there.' Kern testified that Scott asked him something about the Union at Imperial but denied making any statement about the Union himself. Discussion and Conclusions The General Counsel contends that the discharges of Johnson and Scott were motivated by their union activities and the Employer's knowledge that they were the union organizers at the nursing home. Further, the General Counsel contends that, inasmuch as the representation case had not been resolved at the time of the discharges, part of the motivation was to eliminate the two main union sup- porters remaining in the event a second election was or- dered. Respondent maintains that Scott's and Johnson's dis- charges were unrelated to their union activity and were 5It appears that the Union had won bargaining rights at another of Re- spondent's nursing homes and Respondent had been found guilty of viola- tions of Sec 8(a)(l), (3), and (5) of the Act with regard thereto 822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD caused by the Employer 's uniform enforcement of work rules validly adopted. There is no question that Respondent had work rules that provided that an accumulation of three written warn- ings in a 6-month period would result in the termination of employment and there is no question that Johnson had three written warnings within a 6 -month period. However, this is not the entire story. In the first place, there is a clear showing that the work rules were not uniformly applied. The General Counsel adduced evidence from Respon- dent's records that in other cases termination was not auto- matic on the accumulation of three written warnings. Di- ana Roebuck, for instance, was discharged, allegedly for four warnings, and the record reveals that between Sep- tember 16, 1975, and February 3, 1976 , she actually had five, and in addition had an absence report on September 5 concerning which no warning was issued .6 This constitutes a sixth warning within the ambit of Respondent 's regula- tions before Roebuck was discharged. Belinda Bradley, who was discharged February 27, 1976, had four written warnings and a verbal warning between September 5 and February 12. Elaine Plant had three warnings , one of them occasioned by a late call-in for an absence, and was given a fourth on December 16. When she complained to fellow employees about the fourth , after she went back to work, she was given a fifth and discharged. Karen Roberto, who walked off the job on November 27, 1975, had four written warnings and was reported off only an hour and a half before her shift on a fifth occasion. Yet she was not discharged. Rae Mayers had five warnings before she was terminat- ed on February 17. Respondent made no attempt to show that any other employee had ever been discharged after only three warn- ings. It appears therefore that Johnson 's precipitate dis- charge was completely disparate from treatment accorded other employees under the same rules. In addition to the fact that Johnson's discharge is an obvious disparity , the manner in which it was accom- plished revealed a degree of subterfuge that is seldom seen in cases before the Board . Day admitted that she had heard Johnson state that she would leave in spite of the fact she was going to get a warning , inasmuch as she had only one warning prior to that time . Yet, Day testified she had writ- ten a second warning to Johnson that very morning with- out telling Johnson 7 so that she knew that the real decision Johnson was facing was whether to lay herself open to dis- charge summarily if she left the nursing home at that time. No one contends that inhumanity is necessarily unlawful but, under all the circumstances of this case, Day's inhu- manity appears more a deliberate stratagem than casual 6 Respondent's employee policy provides that "failure to report off within at least 3 hours before the shift constitutes a written warning " r Day testified that she wrote the second warning without consulting the nurse who had sent Johnson home or confronting Johnson with her suspi- cions Mrs Sines was not called to testify There is thus no basis for a finding that the warning was valid From the circumstances I infer that it was not brutality. Day knew very well that Johnson had been at the nursing home at 4 : 30 that morning, had worked the night before at least until 10 p .m., and must have been very tired. She knew equally well that Johnson did not have her uni- form with her and accordingly could not go to work promptly after the close of the election in any event. In addition, as I found above, Day did in fact tell Johnson at the preelection conference that she could take off the fol- lowing night, her testimony to the contrary notwithstand- ing I do not credit her denial . Under these circumstances, there being no other rationale offered by Respondent for Day's inhumane and deceitful treatment of Johnson, I in- fer it was because of Johnson's union adherence. I find therefore that Johnson was discharged because of her union adherence and in order for Respondent to rid itself of one of the two known union adherents in its employ. With regard to Scott , Respondent's posture is very little better than with regard to Johnson. Scott had gotten per- mission first from Matson in July, then from Day in Au- gust, to take off for 2 weeks after her marriage. She had done all that she was required to do under the employee regulations promulgated by Respondent. She had asked well in advance for the period of time and secured the necessary permission to take her vacation. Nevertheless, shortly after the election, Respondent changed its mind and denied her the vacation at a point obviously too late for her to make other arrangements with regard to her wed- ding. This duplicity must have been exasperating to Miss Scott to the point of rage. On top of that, when all of her pleas had failed to move Day and Kern, Scott realized that under the explicit provisions of the employee handbook she was liable to lose her vacation completely . Although it is argued that the handbook is ambiguous, the statement is of no ambiguity whatsoever .8 When Scott was told by Kern that the policy provided that vacations were to be taken in the anniversary year, Scott had no reason at this point to trust Kern. She was aware of Respondent's treatment of Johnson and its treatment of her with regard to her vaca- tion, and had no reason to believe that Respondent would not come forward at a later time and deny hei her vacation entirely. It must be noted that Kern did not tell her that he was granting his approval to postpone her vacation to the following year. On the contrary, he misinformed her as to the content of the rule, to no avail since she had the pam- phlet in her hand. In the face of this Kern chose to become upset by the fact that Scott lost her temper. I conclude that the entire vacation matter was contrived by Respondent. I believe that Respondent considered that rather than give up the vacation, Scott would quit her job and it would be well rid of her. Scott, however, lost her temper and slam- med the door and Respondent jumped on this as an excuse to discharge her for insubordination . I find that the dis- charge of Deborah Scott was accomplished because of her union activities and in order to rid Respondent of the last remaining union supporter in its employ. s The handbook states "Vacations must be taken each calendar year and may not be accumulated A vacation may be postponed the following year where scheduling of work requires it and only with the approval of the administrator " GILLETTE'S, THE COUNTRY PLACE 823 The No-Solicitation Rule At the hearing the General Counsel moved to amend the complaint to allege that Respondent had a no-solicitation rule in its employee handbook that forbids any solicitation for any purpose on the hospital premises at any time Re- spondent does in fact have such a rule in the handbook which was promulgated during the Union's campaign when Respondent took over the management of the Home, but Respondent contends that the rule was never enforced and was meant to apply to insurance salesmen and other such solicitations among the employees during their work- ing hours. In view of Respondent's peculiar methods of displaying its union animus, disclosed with regard to the discharges discussed above, I find that the provision is clearly unlawful and warrants an order and I so recom- mend. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE Respondent's violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, occurring in connection with its operations set forth above, have a close, intimate , and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstruct- ing commerce and the free flow thereof CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1, Gillette's, The Country Place, is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local 200, AFL-CIO, is a labor organi- zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3 By discharging Patricia Johnson and Deborah Scott because of their activities on behalf of the Union, Respon- dent has discriminated against employees in regard to their hire, tenure, and terms and conditions of employment, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 4 By the discharge of Johnson and Scott and by the imposition of a no-solicitation rule forbidding solicitation at any time on Employer's premises, Respondent has inter- fered with, restrained, and coerced employees, and is inter- fering with, restraining, and coercing employees, in the ex- ercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices 1 shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action de- signed to effectuate the policies and purposes of the Act. Among other things the recommended Order shall require Respondent to reinstate and make whole Patricia Johnson and Deborah Scott in accordance with the rule in F. W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950) and Isis Plumb- ing & Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962). Upon the foregoing findings and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I issue the following recommended: ORDERS The Respondent, Gillette's, The Country Place, its offi- cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall. I Cease and desist from- (a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against em- ployees for engaging in union or other protected concerted activities. (b) Promulgating or enforcing a no-solicitation rule that forbids solicitation on behalf of the Union at any time on Respondent's premises (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act 2 Take the following affirmative action designed to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act (a) Offer to Patricia Johnson and Deborah Scott imme- diate and full reinstatement to their formerjobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and priv- ileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision enti- tled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay- roll and other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (c) Post at Respondent's place of business in Warren, Ohio, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 10 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 8, after being duly signed by Respon- dent's representatives shall be posted by Respondent im- mediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith 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 10 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" 824 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing at which all sides had a chance to give evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post this notice and we intend to carry out the Order of the Board and abide by the following: The Act gives all employees these rights: To engage in self-organization To form, join, or help unions To bargain collectively through representatives of their choosing To act together for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection To refrain from any or all of these things. WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with, re- strains, or coerces employees with respect to these rights. WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against employees for engaging in activities on behalf of Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local 200, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. WE WILL offer Patricia Johnson and Deborah Scott immediate and full reinstatement to their jobs or, if these jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent jobs, and make them whole for any pay they lost be- cause of our discrimination against them. WE WILL NOT promulgate or enforce a no-solicitation rule that forbids solicitation on our premises at any time. GILLETTE'S, THE COUNTRY PLACE