Retail Clerks Union, Local 588

RETAIL CLERKS UNION, LOCAL 588 7 Retail Clerks Union, Local 588, Retail Clerks Interna- tional Association, AFL-CIO and Geraldine Robe- son. Case 20-CA-10401 Administrative Law Judge's finding that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(aX3) by discharging Robeson. APPENDIX December 7, 1976 - DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND WALTHER On August 27, 1976, Administrative Law Judge James T. Rasbury issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel and Charging Party filed briefs in support of the Administrative Law Judge's decision. 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,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order as modified herein.2 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 as modified below, and hereby orders that the Respon- dent, Retail Clerks Union, Local 588, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, Sacramento, California, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the recommended Order as so modified: 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(b): "(b) In any other manner interfering with, restrain- ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act." 2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the Administrative Law Judge. 1 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 credibili- ty unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect . Standard DryWall 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 Although the Administrative Law Judge found that the Respondent had violated Sec 8(a)(I), he failed to enter the broad, order that is part of the appropriate remedy for this unfair labor practice . We therefore substitute the attached notice for that of the Administrative Law Judge. 2 Since the Administrative Law Judge's findings clearly establish that the Respondent had violated Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act by discharging Geraldine Robeson, and since the remedy he proposed would be the same in any event, we find it unnecessary to rule on his finding that the Respondent had also violated Sea 8(a)(3) by the same conduct . Member Jenkins would adopt the 227 NLRB No. 2 NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing at which parties had the opportunity to give evidence, it has been decided that we, Retail Clerks Union, Local 588, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, have violated the National Labor Relations Act and we have .been ordered to post this notice. We intend to abide by the following: WE WILL offer full and immediate reinstatement to Geraldine Robeson without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, dismissing, if necessary, any employee hired subsequent to the day she was wrongfully discharged. WE WILL make Geraldine Robeson whole for any loss in wages she may have suffered as a result of her wrongful discharge, including all regularly paid employee benefits such as insurance, pen- sions, and vacations. WE WILL NOT discharge Geraldine Robeson, or any other employee, for engaging in protected concerted activity intended to improve the wages and other working conditions of our clerical employees. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights as set forth in the National Labor Relations Act. RETAIL CLERKS UNION, LOCAL 588 , RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JAMES T. RASBURY, Administrative Law Judge: This matter -was heard in Sacramento, California, on April 29 and 30 and May 3, 1976, based on a charge filed on July 8, 1975, by Geraldine Robeson, an individual, against her employer, the Retail Clerks Union, Local 588, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO (herein Employer or Respondent Employer), alleging wrongful termination because of her protected concerted activity. On February 20, 1976, a complaint issued alleging the Employer to have violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29' U.S.C., § 151, et seq., hereinafter called the Act. The Respondent's answer acknowledged the requisite jurisdictional data and the supervisory and agency status of Ralph Williams, president 8 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of the Employer, but denied that Robeson had been terminated because she engaged in protected activities in violation of the Act as alleged. Helpful briefs were received from the General Counsel, the Charging Party's counsel, and the Respondent Employ- er. These have been carefully considered. and weighed and after due consideration of the entire record and the exhibits received, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION The Respondent is, and at all times material herein has been, a labor organization affiliated with the Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, with its principal place of business in Sacramento, California, where it is engaged in organizing unrepresented employees and in representing its members and other employees in collective bargaining with various employers concerning wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. During the past calendar year, in the course and conduct of its operations, the Respondent Employer received gross income in excess of $500,000, of which an amount in excess of $50,000 was remitted to the Retail Clerks International Association in Washington , D.C. During the past calendar year, the Employer maintained collective-bargaining agree- ments with Raley's, Inc., and Safeway Stores, Inc., each of whom received gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and purchased products valued in excess of $50,000 from suppliers located outside the State of California, or from suppliers from within the State of California who obtained such products from outside the State of California. On the basis of these admitted facts, I fmd the Respondent Employer is, and at all times material has been, an employer engaged in commerce and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. THE ISSUES 1. What was the true motivating factor causing the discharge of Geraldine Robeson? 2. Were Robeson's activities of the type falling within the protection of the Act? 3. Has Robeson's conduct - either before or after her discharge - been such as to deny her reinstatement or backpay? III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Evidence Geraldine Robeson was first employed as an office clerical employee by the Respondent Employer in 1964 and remained so employed until June 1$, 1975.1 At all times material herein Robeson's immediate superior was Rose Parino, the office manager, who in turn reported to Ralph Williams, president and chief executive officer of the Respondent Employer. The employees are not represented by a collective-bargaining agent and there is no require- ment to be a member of any union, although Robeson has at all times during her employment been a member of Retail Clerks Local 588. Robeson testified that when she was initially hired by James Alexander, the then chief executive officer of the Respondent Employer, she was advised that her rate of pay would always be that of a journeyman food clerk, a classification of employee represented by the Union (the Employer) in the retail food industry. During the first 4 years of her employment, Robeson was so paid, but in 1968 Ralph Williams became the Employer's chief executive officer and he instituted changes in the wage structure for the office personnel. The office wage rates were made uniform and a reduction in weekly hours from 40 to 35 hours occurred. Although the hours were reduced, the office employees nevertheless continued to receive the same weekly wage rate as they had received for the 40-hour week, thus making their hourly rate substantially higher than the hourly rate received by the journeyman food clerks. In 1971 the office employees received an hourly wage increase, causing their rate to be comparable to the journeyman food clerks (who had received an increase pursuant to negotia- tions-between this Employer and the retail food employers). However, there was a substantial difference in the take- home pay because the journeyman food clerks were working a 40-hour week while the office employees of the Respondent Employer were only working a 35-hour work- week. It was this difference in take-home pay and the knowl- edge that the Employer's business agents' were still being paid in accordance with the manager's rate as set forth in the 'food employers' contract that caused employees Elaine Keech, Thelma Hemmitt, and Geraldine Robeson to meet at Keech's home to discuss and consider what course of action they might take toward enhancing their take-home pay. The employees decided to discuss the matter with Office Manager Rose Parino, and, on February 14, 1974, this was done.2 Mrs. Parino took, the employees' request for change in pay to Mr. Williams, who in turn considered the matter with the Union's executive board at their February meeting.3 No change in pay resulted from this effort. i Most of the relevant and significant events to be discussed and considered herein occurred during the year 1975 and, unless otherwise indicated, all dates hereinafter shall be in the year 1975. 2 There is some insignificant conflict as to whether the employees wanted to work the additional 5 hours per week and thus have the same take-home pay, or whether they wanted to have their hourly rate increased so that they would have the same take-home pay as thejourneyman food clerks but only work 35 hours. I regard this minor conflict in the evidence as ununportant, because, regardless of the individual solution desired or proposed by each of the employees, such conduct amounted to concerted activity for the purpose of increasing their take-home wages. 3 There was evidence introduced that on February 21, the morning following the executive board meeting, Williams told Robeson that she was being relieved of her duties of preparing the news column submitted to the union newspaper for publication to all union members. I have tended to totally ignore this incident because the Employer had a right to change the duties of the employees and because its reason for doing so is a logical one. RETAIL CLERKS UNION, LOCAL 588 9 On- March 7, 1974, Robeson appeared before the Em- ployer's executive board to voice her complaints regarding the difference in pay between the journeyman food clerks and the Employer's office clericals (see CP Exh. 1 for a comparison of the hourly rates of the food clerks and the office clericals as well as the weekly. and annual differences in take-home pay during the period from 1965 through 1974). At this meeting Robeson was informed by Williams that membership in the Union was not a -condition of employment and offered her a withdrawal card. In rejecting her request for an increase in take-home pay, Robeson was advised that anyone who was dissatisfied with the working conditions in the -office could seek employment elsewhere. On August 8, 1974, Robeson appealed what she consid- ered to be a discriminatory wage reduction by the Employ- er to the Employer's international organization, the Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO (G.C. Exh. 2). On October 22, 1974, Respondent's international president replied to the Charging Party, upholding the Employer's position (G.C. Exh. 3). On November 5, 1974, Robeson again wrote Respondent's international president protest- ing the continued loss of the 5 hours' difference in take- home pay and what she believed to be generally discrimina- tory _conduct toward the women office clericals of the Employer (G.C. Exh. 4). As indicated earlier, the charge in this case was filed on July 8, 1975, and all of the above-related activity serves only as background for the relevant events occurring in 1975. On May 7, Mrs. Robeson appeared before the Union's executive board, but departed without explaining her reason for appearing at the meeting. According to the evidence, Mrs. Robeson had appeared in order to ask questions concerning matters she did not understand, but became disturbed at the tone of voice used by Mr. Williams when she asked why the executive board had gone into "executive session," thereby excluding Elaine Keech from the meeting. The next evening at a general membership meeting of the Union, Robeson spoke from the floor and questioned the Employer's officers as to why the male business agents had been given a cost-of-living increase and the female office workers had not received a similar cost-of- living increase. She was informed by Williams that the executive board felt that the office workers were adequately compensated and those who were unhappy might seek employment elsewhere and should do so since some of them appeared to be dissatisfied (see Resp. Exh. 3). The following morning Robeson engaged in a conversa- tion with Paul Frazelle, a former business representative, currently retired as of January 1,. 1976, wherein Frazelle related that in response to a question from him, Robeson stated that Williams was wrong, "the whole operation is wrong. And we will destroy the wrong. And he will be destroyed with'it." According to Frazelle in this conversa- tion Robeson threatened to run for office against Williams if necessary. Robeson denied that she said she was trying to destroy Williams, but only said she wanted to destroy the wrongs that are created by discrimination. On June 5, Robeson gave a speech before the coalition of labor union women in Sacramento , an organization com- posed of activist women who are union members. The speech not only told of the problems encountered by Mrs. Robeson and the other female office clericals with her employer, but was critical of Williams as an employer and a union leader. The general tenor of Robeson's remarks was that his conduct as an employer was inconsistent with the principles to which he was obligated as a union leader. (See G.C. Exh. 5 for copy of the speech.) Following the speech there was a question-and-answer period and Robeson testified that Rose Parino acknowledged that the substan- tive content of the speech was true and this statement by Robeson was not denied during the course of Rose Parino's testimony. The following morning Parino requested a copy of Robeson's speech for Mr. Williams, but' Robeson said she was not interested in giving him a copy as it was something she had done on her own time . Sometime during the following week Williams personally requested a copy of the speech, at which time Robeson told him that she was not giving out copies of the speech as it was not done for the Union or on union time. The official reporter for the membership meetings was Rose Parino, who took notes in longhand and then usually dictated them to one of the stenographers, frequently Mrs. Robeson. This procedure was followed for the May 8 general membership meeting at which it has heretofore been indicated Robeson raised the question concerning the cost-of-living increase for the business agents but none for the office clerical employees. Apparently there was no rush in the typing of the minutes and Mrs. Robeson did not transcribe her shorthand notes until June 9 in order for them to be ready for approval at the membership meeting to be held on June 12. This procedure frequently resulted in one more rough drafts being prepared by Mrs. Robeson before she presented the minutes to Mrs. Parino for her approval, who in turn might make further corrections. After typing the final corrected version of the minutes to be submitted to the membership, Robeson went to the photocopy machine to make a copy for herself, inasmuch as she was personally involved in what had transpired at the May 8 meeting and was quoted in the minutes (see Resp. Exh. 3). Rose Parino saw Robeson at" the photocopy machine and asked what she was doing. Parino told Robeson that she was not allowed to have copies of her (Parino's) minutes. Robeson expressed some surprise and said that she had been permitted to keep a copy of earlier minutes when she had been involved in relevant conversa- tion as reflected in the minutes at the meeting in 1974. This conversation resulted in Parino becoming slightly upset and expressing the fact that she felt her honesty was being questioned by Robeson. The events which followed immediately thereafter are rather bizarre. Robeson testified that her usual practice was to destroy or dispose of each rough draft as she sought to obtain a satisfactory copy. On Wednesday morning, June 11, Robeson opened her desk drawer where she saw one of the earlier rough draft copies of the minutes. This surprised her as it had been her custom to throw the discarded rough drafts into the wastebasket, which she proceeded to do with Even as background evidence this incident in no way reflects discriminatory conduct under the Act 10 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD this particular copy. Later, she removed this rough draft copy from the wastebasket so that she could take the rough draft with her during the lunch hour and read it in order to review the remarks attributed to her. When the Charging Party returned from lunch, Williams and Parino asked her where the rough draft was, ,to which she replied it was in her car. They asked her to get the rough draft, which she did, and return it to them. Williams asked Parino to write this instance up, to which Robeson objected because she had, no knowledge of any rule which she might have violated. Elaine Keech also testified that she had no knowledge of any such rule which would have prevented Robeson from removing the rough draft copy of the minutes from the office. - Parino admitted that she was intentionally snooping at the time she looked in Robeson's desk and saw the rough draft copy in the center drawer. She testified that she first discovered this rough draft copy in Robeson's desk on either the evening of June 9 or the morning of June 10, but said nothing to Robeson. Panno further acknowledged that when she discovered the rough draft to be missing on June 11 she reported the incident to Williams without awaiting an explanation from Robeson concerning the rough draft. The chain of events strikes me as being most unusual and, in view of my belief that Robeson was an honest and candid witness, I am disposed to feel that someone "set her up " On June 17 Williams instructed Panno to seek a stenographic replacement who came to work on June 18. About 4 p.m. in the afternoon on June 18, Williams advised Robeson she was being discharged immediately. Before Williams could explain further, Robeson abruptly stood up and left. Williams testified that he attempted to tell her the reason for her discharge, which at the hearing Respondent contended was misconduct and insubordination, but all that he was able to relate to her was that she was being discharged "for the good of the Union." B. Respondent's Arguments The Respondent contends that Mrs. Parmo announced to Williams that she intended to resign on either June 12 or 13, after nearly 19 years of employment with the Umon, because she could not take any more of the constant harassment which she believed stemmed from Mrs. Robe- son. Williams told Parino to consider the matter further over the weekend and they would discuss her possible resignation the following week. The following Monday, June 16, Williams learned of the conversation between Frazelle and Robeson (which has heretofore been set forth) wherein there is some conflict as to whether Robeson said she wanted to destroy the wrongs created by the discrimina- tion or whether she said Williams was wrong and she would destroy, him. Following these events, Williams consulted with his labor attorney, seeking advice regarding the possible discharge of Robeson and was told that he could properly discharge her for misconduct and insubordination. It was on June 17 that he then asked Parino to obtain some 4 Alleluia Cushion Co, Inc, 221 NLRB 999 (1975) 5 The relevant portion of Sec. 10(b) reads as follows "Provide4 That no complaint shall issue based upon any unfair labor practice occurring more than 6 months prior to the filing of the charge with the Board and the service of a copy thereof upon the person against whom such charge is made... " extra stenographic help and on June 18 advised Robeson that she was being terminated. The Respondent argues first that (1) the General Counsel has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Robeson's discharge was unlawfully motivated; (2) Robe- son's conduct was neither concerted protected activity nor activity on behalf of, or in the interest of, a labor organization; (3) and, finally, the Employer was justified in discharging Robeson because of her own misconduct and the Board is without authority to substitute its judgment for the Employer's as to what constitutes reasonable grounds for discharge. Finally, the Respondent argues that even if it be determined that Robeson was discharged in violation of the Act, she should not be ordered reinstated to her job because she has engaged in egregious conduct toward her employer by disparaging the Employer's business (Fire- house Restaurant, 220 NLRB 818 (1975)). The alleged egregious conduct toward the Employer by Robeson stems from the picketing of the Employer's offices and the distribution by Mrs, Robeson of two handbills which appear in the record as Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 2. Analysis A resolution of this case to a large extent depends on the resolution of the credibility of the various witnesses. I find Geraldine Robeson to be an enthusiastic, oftentimes overly zealous, and naive person, but entirely sincere and honest in her beliefs and testimony . Her testimony is to be credited. Robeson's difficulties in her employment began in 1974, when she and two other office clerical employees, acting in concert, decided to seek restoration of their take- home pay on a basis comparable with the journeyman food clerks. While the other two employees were not so deter- mined in their presentation to the various levels of the Employer's management, nevertheless, I am convinced from all of the testimony and evidence presented to me that her conduct was on behalf of all the office clericals and was of a protected concerted nature. The absence of any outward manifestation of support for her efforts is not sufficient to establish that the Respondent's employees did not share her interest or support her efforts to increase the wages.4 , While Mrs. Robeson's initial efforts were outside of the 10(b) penod,5 her efforts to speak out on the alleged discriminatory conduct of the Employer in granting a cost- of-living wage increase to the business agents while failing to do so for the office clericals was a continuation "of this same effort to improve the wages of the women office workers. The Supreme Court has held that employees of a union have the same right as any other employees and when an employing union discharges an employee for protected concerted activities it violates the Acts The critical ques- tion is whether Robeson acted in good faith on behalf of herself and her fellow office clerical employees for_ the rights she felt they were all entitled to. In my opinion the record supports the conclusion that Robeson was at all times acting in good faith and that her conduct falls within 6 Office Employees International Union Local No 11 v N L.R B., 353 U.S. 313(1957) RETAIL CLERKS UNION, LOCAL 588 11 the limits of concerted activity as set forth in Section 7 of the Act. It seems incredible that after 10 years' employment without one single word, either oral or written, in the nature of a reprimand regarding the quantity or quality of Robeson's work, she should suddenly become a disruptive employee, guilty of misconduct and insubordination. I find the Respondent Employer's alleged reason for her dis- charge to be a pretext. In my opinion, based on all the evidence, the true motivating force causing the discharge of Geraldine Robeson was her persistence in speaking out on behalf of the women clericals in an effort to raise their wages and to correct what she believed to be discriminatory wage policies between the business agents and the office clericals. I have carefully considered Robeson's conduct and testimony as she appeared before me on 3 days as well as the contents of Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 2, which are pamphlets that Robeson distributed after her discharge, and I can find nothing there which I believe to be offensive, defamatory, and so opprobrious as to remove her conduct from the protection of the Act. The Respondent counsel's reliance on N.LKB. v. Ogle Protection Service, Inc., 149 NLRB 545 (1964), 375 F.2d 497 (C.A. 6, 1967), cert. denied 389 U.S. 843, is misplaced. While the principles enunciated in that case are valid, the particular case turned on the resolution of the true motive for the discharge which the Administrative Law Judge and the Board found to have been for valid reasons not protected by the Act. (I.e., good cause. One of the dischargees was fired for drinking on the job and the other for failure to perform his duties. Both were relatively short- term employees.) In the instant case, while it is recognized that all employees must be amenable to the instructions and orders of the employer, nevertheless, when the record fails to reveal a single instance of reprimand or criticism over a 10-year period, a sudden discharge for a reason expressed as "for the good of the union" (this must be translated as: "for the good of the employer") is worthy of microscopic inspection. I have examined all of the evidence carefully, based on the logic of probability under all the circumstanc- es, and it seems reasonable to infer that the Respondent's real reason for discharging Robeson was her persistence in seeking a wage adjustment for the office clericals. The Robeson bulletin of March 28, 1976, makes no direct accusations that either Williams or the Respondent was responsible for the threat on her son's life, but merely sets forth the facts of the threat and then suggests that it could have occurred because of her dispute with the labor union involved. In Blue Jeans Corporation and Whiteville Manufac- turing Company, 170 NLRB 1425 (1968), the Board held that an employee who had threatened to "kill the SOB" who had informed the employer that she was soliciting for the union and threatened a supervisor with a pair of scissors would not forfeit her right to reinstatement, since her misconduct was provoked by her employer's unfair labor practices. In so holding, the Board quoted in part from N.LR.B. v. M & B Headwear Co., Inc., 349 F.2d 170 (C.A. 7 O'Daniel Oldsmobile, Inc, 179 NLRB 398 (1969). s 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 4, 1965), as follows: "An employer cannot provoke an employee to the point where she commits such an indiscre- tion as is shown here and then rely on this to terminate her employment. . . . The more extreme an employer's wrong- ful provocation, the greater would be the employee's justified sense of indignation- and the more likely its excessive expression. To accept the argument addressed to us by the Company would be to provide employers a method of immunizing themselves from the real sanction of Section 8(a)(3). . . . [R]efusal to reinstate her would put a premium on the employer's misconduct." After a careful examination of all of the evidence, I find nothing in this case so flagrant as to render Robeson unfit for further service or to excuse the Respondent from its obligation toward this wrongfully discharged employee.? CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent Employer, Retail Clerks Union, Local 588, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL- CIO, is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. By discharging Geraldine Robeson on June 18, 1975, because she was actively and concertedly seeking to improve the wages and working conditions of the office clericals, the Respondent has interfered with Robeson's Section 7 rights of the Act and thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practice is an unfair labor practice affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. TIE REwDY Having found that Respondent engaged in, and is engaging in, certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. The Respondent unlawfully discharged Geraldine Robe- son in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act and it will be recommended that the Respondent offer her immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substan- tially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of earnings or any other monetary losses she may have suffered as a result of such discrimination from the date of her discharge until reinstated. Any backpay will be deter- mined in accordance with the formula set forth in P. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDERS The Respondent, Retail Clerks Union, Local 588, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, Sacramento, 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. 12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging Geraldine Robeson, or any other em- ployee, for engaging in protected concerted activity intend- ed to improve the wages of the office clericals employed by the Respondent. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Geraldine Robeson immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges and make her whole for any loss of earnings or other monetary losses suffered by her in the manner set forth in the section above 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 for determination of the amount 'of backpay due and the right of reinstatement under the terms of this recommended Order. (c) Post at its principal office in the city of Sacramento, California, on the bulletin board, and all such other places as the usual notices to employees are posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."9 Copies of such notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, after being signed by an authorized representa- tive of the Respondent, shall be posted by the Respondent, immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 9 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by the National Labor Relations Board." Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant