Continental Distributing Co., Inc.

654 I)ECISIONS OF NATIONAl. LABOR RELATIONS 13)ARD Continental Distributing Co., Inc. and Richard Strom. Case 13-CA-19482 June 18, 1981 DECISION AND ORDER On November 24, 1980, Administrative Law Judge Frank H. Itkin issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex- ceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed with the Board its brief to the Ad- ministrative Law Judge. 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, find- ings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order,2 as modified herein. 3 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- The Administrative Law Judge found that Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act by discharging employee Richard Strom on January 14, and by reinstating him on February 14 to a job perform- ing more onerous tasks, excluding him from the warehouse where he for- merly worked, and forbidding him to have conversations with other em- ployees in the warehouse. Respondent does not except to the finding that Strom was discharged on January 14 in violation of the Act. However, Respondent conltends that Strom's reassignment to more onerous tasks upon reinstatement was justified because it learned after his discharge, but before his reinstate- ment, that Strom Strom was a security risk In this regard, Respondent contends that the Administrative law Judge erred by crediting the testi- mony of the General Counsel's witnesses over the testimony of its wit- nesses Specifically, Respondent contends that the Administrative I aw Judge erred by stating that Strom's testimony concerning his alleged mis- conduct was corroborated by his father, Roy Strom.n and by William Davis. Generally, the Board accords considerable weight to an administrative law judge's credibility resolutions, and those resolutions will niot be over- ruled unless the clear preponderance of all relevant evidence indicates that those resolutions were incorrect Applying this policy to the instant case, we find no basis for overruling the Administrative Law Judge's credibility determinations. Sandard Drywall Produciv, Inc., 91 NLRII 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). It is true that the testimony of Roy Strom and William Davis was not directed to Richard Strom's statement regarding his alleged misconduct However, Roy Strom's testimony was corroborative of Richard Strom's statements regarding his discharge and William Davis' testimony was cor- roborative of Strom's statements regarding the nature of his duties upon reemployment. We further find that the record supports the Administra- tive law Judge's crediting of Richard Strom and his discrediting of Re- spondent's witnesses on the basis of their demeanor, certain flaws in the testimony of employee Swachig, inconsistencies in the testimony of l'resi- dent Cooper, and the admission that theft was a widespread problem be- lieved to involve other employees both before and after Strom's dis- charge. 2 Member Jenkins would provide interest oin the backpay award in ac- cordance with his partial dissent in Olympic Medical Corporation, 250 NLRB 146 (1980). 3 The Administrative Law Judge in his Decision erroneously refers to the Union as the Liquor and Allied Workers Union f the Distillery, Rectifying, Wine and Allied Workers International Ulnion, AFL-CIO. The correct name of the Union (which is not named as a charging party herein) as it appears in the complaint is Liquor and Allied Workers Union, Local No, 3 of the Distillery. Rectifying, Wine and Allied Work- ers International Union, AFL-CIO 256 NLRB No. 91 lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi- fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Continental Distributing Co., Inc., Rosemont, Illi- nois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recom- mended Order, as so modified: 1. Substitute the following for paragraph l(a): "(a) Discouraging membership in Liquor and Allied Workers Union, Local No. 3 of the Distill- ery, Rectifying, Wine and Allied Workers Interna- tional Union, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor or- ganization, by discriminatorily discharging or dis- criminatorily reinstating any of its employees, by discriminatorily imposing more onerous terms and conditions of employment upon any of its employ- ees, or by in any other manner discriminating against its employees with respect to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment." 2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the Administrative law Judge. 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 an opportu- nity to present evidence and state their positions, the National Labor Relations Board found that we have violated the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and has ordered us to post this notice. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Liquor and Allied Workers Union, Local No. 3 of the Distillery, Rectifying, Wine and Allied Workers International Union, AFL- CIO, or in any other labor organization, by discriminatorily discharging or discriminatorily reinstating any of our employees, by discrimin- atorily imposing more onerous conditions of employment upon any of our employees, or by in any other manner discriminating against our employees with respect to their hire or tenure of employment or any term of condition of employment. WE WILL. NOT discharge or otherwise dis- criminate against any of our employees be- cause they have sought the assistance of the National Labor Relations Board or have filed charges or given testimony under the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL NOT prohibit our employees from speaking to their coworkers in order to pre- CONTINENTAL DISTRIBUTING CO., INC. 655 vent or discourage them from engaging in union or other protected concerted activity. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL offer employee Richard Strom im- mediate and full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a sub- stantially equivalent position, without preju- dice to his seniority or other rights and privi- leges, and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered due to the dis- crimination against him, with interest. CONTINENTAL DISTRIBUTING CO., INC. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE FRANK H. ITKIN, Administrative Law Judge: The unfair labor practice charge in this case was filed by Richard Strom on January 16, 1980. The complaint issued on February 28, 1980. A hearing was conducted in Chicago, Illinois, on July 21, 1980. The General Counsel alleges that Respondent Employer violated Section 8(a)(l), (3), and (4) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act, by discharging em- ployee Richard Strom on or about January 14, 1980; by imposing more onerous terms and conditions of employ- ment upon employee Strom on or about February 14, 1980, when the employee was reinstated by the Employ- er; and by prohibiting employee Strom from speaking to other employees on or about February 14, 1980. Re- spondent denies that it has violated the Act as alleged. Upon the entire record, including my observation of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs of counsel, I make the following findings of fact and con- clusions of law: FINDINGS OF FACT Respondent Employer is engaged in the wholesale sale and distribution of liquor and related products. Respond- ent is admittedly an employer engaged in commerce as alleged. Liquor and Allied Workers Union, Local No. 3 of the Distillery, Rectifying, Wine and Allied Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, has, at all times perti- nent to this case, represented certain of Respondent's em- ployees and is admittedly a labor organization as alleged. In June 1976, Richard Strom was hired by Respondent as a part-time worker in its warehouse facility. Later, about September 1977, Richard Strom became a full-time employee of Respondent. Richard Strom's immediate su- pervisor was, until on or about January 1980, his father Roy Strom.' Richard Strom's duties included working in I Roy Strom was then Respondent's warehouse manager the "split room" in the warehouse, where orders for less than full cases of liquor are filled; unloading trucks; deli- vering goods; and performing in season, and weather permitting, gardening duties on Respondent's grounds. Richard Strom testified that, during 1979, he "asked" Company President Fred Cooper, "if I [Strom] could join the Union." Fred Cooper responded: "[W]e'll wait and see." Later, on or about January 14, 1980, Richard Strom again asked Fred Cooper about joining the Union. Richard Strom recalled this conversation, as follows: He [Cooper] asked me what is it I [Strom] want. I started talking to him, and I said, "I'd like to join the Union because things are bad, and money is get- ting bad, and, you know, I need the money to make ends meet." He told me that "you're not reliable, you screwed off when your father went on vaca- tion. You're not reliable, and I can't have this, and there is no way I'm going to put you in the Union." I asked him one more time. I said, "why," and he said, "I'm sorry, I am not putting you in the Union," and that was it. Shortly after the above conversation, on January 14, Richard Strom, as he testified, "called up the Labor Re- lations Board." Richard Strom "placed" this telephone call from the Employer's "routing room." He had the following conversation with a Board representative: I [Strom] asked them [the Board agent], who was supposed to put you in the Union. They told me that the Company doesn't put you in the [Union] .... They told me that the Company is not re- sponsible for putting you in the Union. That the Union is supposed to put you in the Union. Richard Strom recalled that Warehouse Superintendent Jack Poland "was standing in the hallway" some 20 feet away while he was making this telephone call. Richard Strom thereupon telephoned the Union. After speaking with a representative at the Union's office, he went to coworker Debbie Fiorito and "asked her where the slips were to join the Union." She told Richard Strom that "the slips were downstairs in the desk" used by union steward Ron Nurkey. Richard Strom then "went downstairs" and obtained "one of the slips." Rich- ard Strom partially "filled out" the union "slip" and "called the Union back" to ascertain certain information in order to complete "the form." Richard Strom later gave the completed "form" to coworker Fiorito who agreed to turn it over to union steward Nurkey. 2 Later that evening, Richard Strom was advised by his father, Roy Strom, not to return to work because Fred Cooper "doesn't want [him] in the Company." 2 In addition, Richard Strom testified that before hi, shift cllded that day. January 14, Superintendent Poland stated to him "I Pl'oland] heard what you [Strom] ere talking about I ll go alpstairs and talk to Fred [Cooper] fr you" 656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Roy Strom testified that he had asked Fred Cooper "about Richard joining the Union" during June 1979. Cooper responded that he "would let [Strom] know." Thereafter, during the evening of January 14, 1980, as Roy Strom further testified, Cooper telephoned him at his home and said that Rich was up to see him [Cooper] early that morning and asked to be placed in the Union. He told Rich that Rich was not ready to go into the Union. .... Later that afternoon . . . Mr. Jack Poland . . . told him [Cooper] that a couple of girls, or something like that, had overheard Rich calling the N.L.R.B ..... He [Cooper] said, "Roy I cannot have that. Find him another job. I do not want him here anymore." Roy Strom agreed to advise his son Richard that he was terminated. Counsel for Respondent, in his post-hearing brief (pp. 1-3), states: "At the hearing, Respondent offered no evi- dence on the discharge allegations. Nonetheless, it is Re- spondent's position that the General Counsel has failed to meet his burden of proving the discharge allegations by competent, credible and substantial evidence." Coun- sel for Respondent further states (pp. 3-4): Respondent admits that it altered Strom's job duties upon his reinstatement on February 14, 1980. . .. It is Respondent's position that evidence of Strom's misconduct, learned by it subsequent to his dis- charge on January 14, 1980, and prior to his rein- statement on February 14, 1980, made it necessary to restrict Strom's access to merchandise and hence to restrict [his] access to certain areas of the ware- house. This specific evidence of misconduct, learned by Respondent after the discharge and prior to the re- instatement, involved Strom's drinking of merchan- dise and Strom's stated intentions and actual remov- al of merchandise. The evidence pertaining to these and related assertions is discussed below. Richard Strom testified that on February 14, 1980, when he was reinstated by the Employer, Company Agent Austin Preston instructed Strom that, "from now on, his job" included "pumping gas," "cleaning up out- side," "taking care of the warehouse," "sweeping," and "emptying out garbage cans." Richard Strom testified that, before his discharge, he had not performed these duties. Further, Richard Strom testified: He [Preston] told me that I'm not allowed in the warehouse. That I'm not allowed to talk to any of the kids in the split room. He told me that I was not allowed to talk to anybody in the split room and I'm not allowed to handle any merchandise. That was all they told me. 3 Nadia Swachig has been employed by Respondent as a shipping clerk since September 1979. Roy Strom, Rich- ard's father, was her "boss" until late January 1980. Swa- chig claimed that, "during the Christmas rush" of 1979, she observed "an unusual circumstance involving Rich- ard Strom and one of the Company salesmen." She asser- tedly observed Richard Strom, while filling an order for "one case of liquor," load "two cases instead of one" and the "salesman put his hand into his coat pocket . . . pulled out money . . . put his hand out to Richard Strom . . . [and] Richard Strom looked in his hand and put his hand into his pocket." According to Swachig, Richard Strom later boasted to her, "I just made $50 off one of the salesmen." In addition, Swachig testified that, while there was construction work in progress at the warehouse during October or November 1979, Richard Strom said to her "how easy it would be to slip whiskey out through the entrance that the construction men" used. Further, Swachig testified that about "Christmas time" of 1979, when Richard Strom was instructed to de- liver an order in his own van, he stated to her "that this was a good time to make some extra dollars" and then loaded three extra cases into his van. Swachig also claimed that Richard Strom had acknowledged to her that he was "drinking" liquor in the "split room" and "goofing off." Swachig testified that she never reported the above misconduct to her "boss" Roy Strom, Richard's father. She then added that she had observed Roy Strom "punching" Richard Strom's timecard "in and out" when Richard was not at work. Swachig assertedly first relat- ed the above misconduct involving Richard Strom to President Fred Cooper "after Richard Strom was dis- charged." On cross-examination, Swachig recalled that she had never reported to "anybody," prior to Strom's discharge, the incident involving the "salesman"; that a security guard had been posted at the "construction" door "because of theft" and there were "many [construc- tion] workers going in and out"; and that all the "split room workers" told her that "they used to goof off." Company President Fred Cooper testified that he had "several" conversations with employee Nadia Swachig between January 14 and February 14, 1980; that these "conversations" were "in the shipping office"; that he is "not sure" "if she initiated it or [he] did . . ."; and that she then "informed" him "of the situation with the sales- man" and Richard Strom. Cooper added that Swachig also told me about the way he [Richard Strom] used to brag about drinking in the warehouse and the fact you could steal merchandise out of the new addition . . . which was not secured at that point . . .[and] the fact that he used to brag he had out- fitted his van with whiskey that he had taken from ' Employee William Davis testified that Richard Strom, upon his rein- statement by the Employer, "was doing maintenance work"-"sweep- ing." Dasis had never seen Richard Strom perform "that kind of work hefore-" later. according to )avis, Richard Strom started "working out- side" after "the grass started growing" CONTINENTAL DISTRIBUTING CO., INC. 657 the Company . . . [and] that he would goof off in the warehouse. Cooper also claimed that, "during this period" between Strom's "termination and reinstatement," he became "aware of the fact that" Richard "had a problem as he was growing up"-"I [Cooper] found out that he had a long juvenile record." Company President Fred Cooper asserted that he therefore "changed" Richard Strom's duties when he "reinstated" the employee and that he "instructed our people not to let him have access to any merchandise . . . because of security reasons .. ." Cooper, as he tes- tified, relied "upon what Nadia told me." Cooper then added: In fact, last year the situation occurred when a rela- tive of mine had one of their kids working there, and he also reported that Richard Strom was drink- ing at that time. On cross-examination, Cooper acknowledged that theft was a widespread problem at the time, that a security guard was posted at the construction door after Richard Strom was discharged, and that, as stipulated, "the Com- pany had reason to believe that other people had been stealing .... " Cooper also acknowledged that employ- ee Swachig was unable to identify the "salesman" in- volved in the above incident.4 On rebuttal, Richard Strom explained that on one oc- casion a salesman "gave me a dollar" because he, Strom, carried one case of liquor to the salesman's automobile. Strom denied telling coworker Swachig that he had "made $50 off a salesman." He recalled making a deliv- ery in his van for the Employer. He explained that he then delivered six cases as invoiced by the Employer. He acknowledged that "some" employees "often drink" at work. Further, he denied that anyone from Respondent has ever accused him of "drinking" or "stealing." And, he assertedly told Swachig that "it would be easy for those on [the] construction [workers] to go ahead and take what they want because nobody is back there .... That's the only things I said to her about that." Further, Roy Strom denied punching Richard's timecard. I credit the testimony of Richard Strom and Roy Strom as recited above. Their testimony is in significant part mutually corroborative. Their testimony is also cor- roborated in part by the testimony of William Davis and is substantiated in part by the testimony of Fred Cooper. Further, relying on demeanor, I am persuaded on this record that the testimony of Richard and Roy Strom is a truthful, complete, and trustworthy account of the se- quence of events attending Richard Strom's firing and 4 Austin Preston, operations manager for Respondent, acknowledged that Richard Strom, when reinstated, was instructed on his new duties, as follows: [W)e wanted him to sweep the warehouse, keep it clean We also wanted him to stay away from the split room which is the open bottle area . . . Just clean the floor, throw the garbage out and things of that type Preston denied telling Richard Strom "that he was not allowed to talk to other employees." Preston added: "I constantly told him to stay out of the split room." subsequent reinstatement. Insofar as the testimony of Fred Cooper and Austin Preston differs with the testimo- ny of Richard and Roy Strom, I credit the testimony of the latter as more reliable and trustworthy. As discussed below, I find here, and Respondent does not seriously controvert, that Richard Strom was summarily terminat- ed because he was attempting to assert his Section 7 rights and seek the assistance of the National Labor Re- lations Board. I also find that Respondent, in reinstating the employee after unfair labor practice charges were filed, assigned the employee different and more onerous duties and, further, attempted to keep him from speaking with his coworkers in the split room. I find here that Re- spondent, in discharging and later reinstating the em- ployee in this manner, was attempting to punish the em- ployee because of his efforts to join the Union and seek the assistance of the Board. I reject as pretextual the as- sertions of Fred Cooper, and Nadia Swachig, to the effect that employee Richard Strom was reinstated to different duties because of "drinking," "stealing," and re- lated acts of misconduct. I do not credit these assertions. Further, I note that Fred Cooper, when pressed, also at- tempted to rely on Richard Strom's alleged "problem as he was growing up" and incidents of "drinking" which were reported long before the employee's termination. Richard Strom credibly testified that management had never accused him of "stealing" or "drinking" its prod- uct. On this record, I am persuaded that management would not, and did not, reinstate an employee who, as claimed, drank and stole its product. Rather, I find here that management reinstated the employee to a more onerous and limited job in an attempt to get rid of the employee in retaliation for his having engaged in protect- ed Section 7 activities and having sought the Board's as- sistance. 5 Discussion Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act protects the right of an employee to join a labor organization. Section 8(a)(1) makes it an unfair practice for an employ- er to interfere with, restrain, or coerce an employee in the exercise of his Section 7 rights. Section 8(a)(3) bars employer discrimination to "discourage membership in any labor organization .... " And Section 8(a)(4) for- bids an employer "to discharge or otherwise to discrimi- nate against an employee because he has filed charges . . . under the Act." Moreover, employee "utilization of the Board's remedial processes" is protected by Section 7. Cf. .L.R.B. v. Local 294, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America [August Bohl Contracting Co.], 470 F.2d 57, 60- 61 (2d Cir. 1972). For, a "healthy interplay of the forces governed and protected by the Act means that there should be as great a freedom to ask the Board for relief ' In discrediting management', asserted reasons for reinstating employ- ee Richard Strom to different joh duties, I do not credit the cited acts of misconduct attributed to the employee by coworker Sachig I find n- credible her explanation why she first wvent to upper management ith recitals of "stealing" and "drinking" after the employee's discharge. I find, instead, that upper management enlisted her assistance here after re- peated discussions in an attempt to justif' its unlawful conduct. 658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD as there is to petition any other department of govern- ment for redress of grievances .... " Cf. N.L.R.B. v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers [United States Lines Co.], 391 U.S. 418, 424 (1968). Also see General Nutrition Center, Inc., 221 NLRB 850, 855 (1975), and cases cited. The essentially undisputed and credible evidence of record makes it clear here that Company President Fred Cooper summarily terminated employee Richard Strom on January 14, 1980, because the employee was attempt- ing to become a member of the Union and because he had sought the assistance of the Board. Employee Rich- ard Strom had asked Company President Fred Cooper "to be placed in the Union." Cooper refused. Strom was later overheard by management talking to a Board repre- sentative. Cooper thereupon instructed Richard Strom's father, "Roy, I cannot have that. Find him another job. I do not want him here anymore." I find and conclude that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act. Employee Richard Strom filed an unfair labor practice charge some 2 days later, on January 16, 1980. Thereaf- ter, on February 14, 1980, about 2 weeks before the com- plaint issued in this case, management admittedly rein- stated the employee to different job duties which in- volved in large part cleaning and sweeping chores. Man- agement claims that it changed employee Strom's job duties because, during the 30-day interval between his unlawful firing and reinstatement, it had learned that he was, inter alia, "stealing" and "drinking" its product. I reject this assertion as pretextual. I do not believe that management would reinstate, under the circumstances present here, a thief and a person who drank its product. Management, by assigning the employee different and more arduous duties, was attempting to get rid of him al- together, in further violation of Section 8(a)(l), (3), and (4). And management's efforts to isolate the employee and restrict him from talking to his coworkers also tended to impinge upon the employee's Section 7 rights as alleged. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce as alleged. 2. Liquor and Allied Workers Union, Local No. 3 of the Distillery, Rectifying, Wine and Allied Workers In- ternational Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization as alleged. 3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l), (3), and (4) of the Act by discharging employee Richard Strom on or about January 14, 1980; by imposing more onerous terms and conditions of employment upon employee Strom on or about February 14, 1980, when he was reinstated by the Employer; and by prohibiting employee Strom from speaking to other employees. 4. The unfair labor practices found above affect com- merce as alleged. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that Re- spondent cease and desist from engaging in such conduct or like or related conduct and post the attached notice. Having found that Respondent in discharging and later reinstating employee Richard Strom to more arduous work violated Section 8(a)(l), (3), and (4) of the Act, it will be recommended that Respondent offer to employee Richard Strom immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prej- udice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of this discrimination, by making payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned from the date of Respondent's dis- crimination to the date of Respondent's offer of reinstate- ment, less net earnings during such period, with backpay and interest thereon to be computed in the manner pre- scribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).6 Further, it will be recommended that Respond- ent preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board, all payroll records and reports, and all other re- cords necessary and useful to determine the amount of backpay due and the rights of reinstatement under the terms of these recommendations. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record of the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issued the following recommended: ORDER 7 The Respondent, Continental Distributing Co., Inc., Rosemont, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in Liquor and Allied Workers Union No. 3 of the Distillery, Rectifying, Wine and Allied Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization, by discriminatorily dis- charging or discriminatorily reinstating any of its em- ployees, by discriminatorily imposing more onerous terms and conditions of employment upon any of its em- ployees, or by in any other manner discriminating against its employees with respect to their hire or tenure of em- ployment or any term or condition of employment. (b) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any of its employees because they have sought the assist- ance of the National Labor Relations Board or have filed charges or given testimony under the National Labor Relations Act. (c) Prohibiting its employees from speaking to other employees in order to prevent or discourage the employ- ees from engaging in union or other protected concerted activities. ' See, generally, Iis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). 7In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the find- ings, 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 he deemed waived for all purposes CONTINENTAL DISTRIBUTING CO., INC. 659 (d) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act: (a) Offer employee Richard Strom immediate and full reinstatement to his former job or to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay sustained as a result of his discriminatory discharge and discriminatory reinstatement, in the manner set forth in this Decision. (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time- cards, personnel records and reports, and all other re- cords necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (c) Post at its facilities in Rosemont, Illinois, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 8 Copies of said I In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 13, after being duly signed by Respondent, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "