Great Recipe Products Corporation

GREAT RECIPE PRODUCTS CORP. Great Recipe Products Corporation and Internation- al Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, AFL- CIO-CLC and Gregory Thomas. Cases 10-CA- 16725 and 10-CA-17033 January 31, 1983 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, ZIMMERMAN, AND HUNTER On September 30, 1982, Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Gritta issued the attached Deci- sion in this proceeding. Thereafter, Royal Chicken, Inc., as party in interest, filed exceptions and a sup- porting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions 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 Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi- fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Great Recipe Products Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall take the action set forth in the said rec- ommended Order, as so modified: 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(b): "(b) Offer Jennifer Johnson, Kathy Keith, and Gregory Thomas immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without Royal Chicken. Inc., excepts, as party in interest, solely on the grounds that the General Counsel failed to litigate, and the Administra- tive Law Judge's Decision failed to address, the issue of Respondent's dissolution prior to the hearing. Royal Chicken complains that by includ- ing "successors" within the scope of the Order, the Administrative Law Judge unduly prejudiced it in terms of its potential liability for remedying Respondent's unfair labor practices. We find no prejudice inasmuch as the issue of Royal Chicken's potential liability as successor may yet be pleaded and litigated during the compliance stage of this proceeding. See Robert G. Shearer d/b/a George C. Shearer Exhibitors Delivery Service, 246 NLRB 416, fn. 3 (1979), and Southeastern Envelope Co., Inc. & Southeast- ern Expandvelope, Inc. (Diversified Assembly, Inc.), 246 NLRB 423 (1979). In reaching this result, Member Hunter notes that although Royal Chick- en had actual notice of the issuance of the complaint and of the unfair labor practice hearing, it did not seek to intervene in that proceeding. 2 We have modified the Administrative Law Judge's recommended Order to include the full reinstatement language traditionally provided by the Board. We also modify the proposed notice to conform with the pro- visions of the recommended Order. prejudice to their seniority or any other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suf- fered, plus interest." 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 discharge our employees for engaging in protected activities. WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union sympathies or desires. WE WILL NOT make working conditions more onerous because our employees engage in union activities. WE WILL NOT prohibit union solicitations among our employees in nonworking areas of the plant on nonworktime. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL offer Jennifer Johnson, Kathy Keith, and Gregory Thomas immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent jobs, without prejudice to their se- niority or any other rights and privileges pre- viously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered, plus interest. WE WILL also expunge from the personnel files of Jennifer Johnson, Kathy Keith, and Gregory Thomas any reference to their dis- charges detailed above. GREAT RECIPE PRODUCTS CORPORA- TION DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ROBERT A. GRITTA, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard before me on July 14, 1982, in Atlanta, Georgia, based upon charges filed by International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, AFL-CIO-CLC, 266 NLRB No. 12 67 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and Gregory Thomas, an Individual (herein the Union and individual charging party) on February 27, March 5, and May 28, 1981, and complaints issued by the Regional Director for Region 10 of the National Labor Relations Board on April 9 and July 9, 1981.1 The complaints allege that Great Recipe Products Corporation (herein referred to as Respondent) violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act, by interrogating, threatening, and interfering with employees engaged in union activities and by discharging employees for supporting the Union. Respondent's timely answer denies the commission of any unfair labor practices. All parties hereto were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to intro- duce evidence, and to argue orally on the record. 2 Upon the entire record in this case and from my obser- vation of the witnesses and their demeanor on the wit- ness stand, and upon substantive, reliable evidence con- sidered along with the consistency and inherent probabil- ity of testimony, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION AND STATUS OF LABOR ORGANIZATION-PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find that Great Recipe Products Corporation is a Georgia corporation engaged in food processing in Atlanta, Geor- gia. Jurisdiction is not in issue. Great Recipe Products Corporation, in the past 12 months, in the course and conduct of its business operations shipped products from its Atlanta facility, valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points located outside the State of Georgia. I conclude and find that Great Recipe Products Corporation is an employer engaged in commerce and in operations affect- ing commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I con- clude and find that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent operates a meat processing plant com- posed of two production rooms. Production room #1 consists of two deboning lines and two cutting lines. Jim Moore is the admitted supervisor of the two cutting lines and Dennis Meaders is the admitted supervisor of the two deboning lines. After production room #1 completes the cutting and deboning the meat passes to production room #2 for refrigeration processing and packing. Pro- duction room #1 employs approximately 150 employees whereas production room #2 has less employees. The admitted plant manager is James Hewell and Mel Nibert is the alleged maintenance supervisor.3 All dates herein are in 1981 unless otherwise specified. 2 Albeit Respondent was timely served with notice it made no appear- ance nor was it represented by counsel. Neither party desired to file a brief. 3 The complaint in Case 10-CA-16725 alleges a Mel Myburn as main- tenance supervisor. Respondent's answer denies the supervisory and em- 111. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Jennifer Johnson testified that she was employed by Respondent as a cutter on the trim line on August 5, 1980. Her immediate supervisor was Jim Moore. In Janu- ary 1981, Johnson called the Union and discussed orga- nizing the Employer. As a result of a meeting with union officials Johnson received 37 authorization cards to be distributed in the plant. Johnson solicited signatures on all the cards and returned them to the Union. The union representative suggested an in-plant committee to solicit additional authorization cards. Following a union meet- ing in a local motel a committee was selected and each member was given 50 cards to distribute. The next day each member took the cards into the plant to solicit sig- natures. Shortly thereafter on January 9, Mel Nibert, mainte- nance supervisor, approached Johnson just outside the production room in the hall. Nibert asked for a union card telling Johnson he knew she had some. Johnson denied having union cards and Nibert told Johnson if she did not give him one he would get someone else to get it for him. Johnson again denied having any union cards. Johnson did in fact have union cards but they were locked in her locker. Nibert was the maintenance supervisor and had been instrumental in establishing the machines in the produc- tion rooms and was responsible for their repair and upkeep. After the production rooms were set up it was decided to put on a night shift to clean up and repair ma- chines after the day's production. Several friends asked Johnson about employment at Respondent's plant. John- son directed them to Nibert and later learned that Nibert had hired them. Johnson also knew that Nibert told the maintenance employees what to do and disciplined those same employees. On one occasion which occurred on January 15 two maintenance employees came to work late. Willie, the leadperson in maintenance, wanted them discharged and discussed the situation with Nibert. The two employees were then discharged. Johnson testified that she was discharged on February 12 by Jim Moore. Johnson recalled the events as follows: On the day that I was discharged, I had just came off break. The lady from personnel came on pro- duction one floor, to the cutting line and told me that I had an emergency phone call from the nurs- ery that my child attended and said that I needed to call the nursery immediately, because he was ill. I asked Mr. Moore could I be dismissed from the line to go call the nursery to see what was wrong with my son. I called the nursery and they asked me to come and get him because he was sick and there was nothing else that they could do for him, be- cause they had did everything that they could. They asked me to come and get him. I went back on production one floor and talked to Mr. Moore and told him that I needed to get off from work to go see about my son, because he was ill. At that ployee status of Myburn. At the hearing the General Counsel amended par. 6 of the complaint to substitute Mel Nibert for Mel Myburn. 68 GREAT RECIPE PRODUCTS CORP. time Mr. Moore said that he wasn't gonna keep let- ting me off from work, and I told him that I had to go see about my child, because I was the only sup- port of him. He asked me to bring a doctor's certifi- cate, and I told him that I would. He asked me not to nut up on him, and I told him that I wasn't. He asked me to quit my job, and I asked him was he crazy. Then he said "Don't worry about clocking in any more," and I asked him was he firing me, and he said "Yes," and I told him to clock me out and then get my money that the company owed me and I would leave the premises. Q. Okay, were you in fact given your money? A. Yes. Johnson stated that she had never been reprimanded for job performance either orally or in writing. In the past she and other employees had been permitted to leave the plant for personal reasons without recourse by Moore. Moore had not placed any limitations upon em- ployees leaving the plant for personal reasons. Johnson's most recent request to leave the plant was on February 10 when she became ill. Moore allowed her to leave but wanted a doctor's excuse upon her return. Johnson came back to work the next day and brought the doctor's excuse to Moore. Kathy Keith testified that she was hired on the debon- ing line on October 6, 1980. Her immediate supervisor was Dennis Meaders. Keith became involved in the union campaign at its beginning during the first week of January. She attended meetings, assisted Jennifer John- son in getting employee signatures on authorization cards totaling about 40, and wore a union pin. During the last week of February, Meaders ap- proached a group of employees in the plant just outside the work area. Employee Carolyn Jones, Carolyn Scott, and Pringle were with Keith. Keith testified as follows: Well, we began work-well, we started to work that morning around 6:54 or 7:00 we began in the work area. We don't start working until 7:00, and we had just began to work when the inspector came in and told everybody they had to leave out because the work area wasn't clean. The walls was greasy and the tables was greasy, so we had to go outside the work area and we was standing out there and one of the employees, Doris, was talking about she was scared to attend the union meetings because she was scared she would get fired. And I was telling her that what she did on her time, you know, they couldn't fire her because the union meetings were after work. So, we began work about fifteen or twenty minutes after that and Dennis came over to me and told me he wanted to talk to me in the break room. So, we went out in the break area and he told me don't be talking about any damned union with my other employees, trying to influence them. On February 25 or 26 Meaders called the deboning employees out to the break area in threes. He read from a paper that stated that employees are responsible for any meat left on the bones because such waste cost the Company money. Each employee was expected to make up any loss out of his paycheck. Keith was among the final threesome and refused to sign because more than one person could be responsible and she was not going to pay for someone else's bad work. Also on February 27 at the normal clock out time of 3:45 p.m. there were no timecards in the rack for the deboning employees. The security guard told the employees to see Meaders in the secretary's office one at a time. Meaders gave each employee new rules respecting tardiness, restrooms, and doctors' excuses. Thereafter any clock in at 7 a.m. or after is late and an accumulation of five lates equal I day's absence. A doctor's excuse would no longer be ac- cepted and no employee could go to the restroom with- out Meaders' permission. Each deboning employee was required to sign an employee counseling report after being advised of the rule changes by Meaders. On March 2, the Union held a meeting and distributed union buttons with the legend, "Firemen and Oilers, United we stand, divided we fall." Several employees wore the buttons to work the next day. A second conversation with Meaders took place on March 3 at the deboning work station. Plant Manager Jim Hewell and employee Carolyn Jones were involved. Keith, Jones, and several other employees were wearing the union buttons on the work smock furnished by Re- spondent. Hewell told Jones she had to remove the pin because it was on company property. Jones removed the pin from the smock and placed it on her personal blouse. Jones told Hewell that the smock was company property but the blouse was hers and she could wear it on her blouse. Hewell then turned, spoke to Meaders, and began surveying the room and counting the number of employ- ees wearing union buttons. Hewell left and Meaders came to Keith's work station. Meaders told Keith she would have to take the union.button off because it might fall into the product. While Meaders and Keith discussed how the button could fall, the supervisor of the depart- ment came over and told Meaders that the employees did not have to remove the insignia. The Company did have a rule that jewelry or nail polish could be worn while working but it had to be covered by gloves, hair- net, or the work smock. The following day, March 4, Keith was discharged. She testified: I came to work about 7:05, and I got ready to clock in, but I didn't have a time card. So, Chuck Short- man, he came out and told me that Dennis wanted to see me, and I asked him how did Dennis want to see me and didn't even know I was there. But he said I should wait a few minutes. So, I waited and by that time Dennis came out and he told me I was fired, and I asked him why and he said because I was late. I told him he wasn't firing me because I was late, he was firing me for the union activities. By that time, Chuck Shortman, he spoke and told me to wait in the break room 'cause I had to go up before the board and the committee before Dennis could fire me. 69 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD And I asked him what board and committee, be- cause I had never heard of a board and a commit- tee, and he told me that the board and committee was himself, Jim Hewell, and Jack, the payroll clerk. So, I went and sat in the break room and I waited from about 7:05 til 10:30, and that's when Dennis brought my check in. Keith was late clocking in on only one occasion and that was her day of discharge. On that day she was only 4 or 5 minutes late. She had never been warned of late- ness nor had she ever been criticized for her attitude toward her job. Nonetheless, when she was discharged the separation notice given to her by Meaders clearly stated past infractions and counseling. Gregory Thomas testified that he was hired on Febru- ary 6, 1981, on the cutting line and worked under Super- visor Jim Moore. His job was to dump fresh chicken on the conveyor belt and pick up and weigh the cut-up meat. During his employment he signed a union card, at- tended union meetings, and wore union insignia. The day following his first union meeting, about March 5, Jim Moore approached Thomas at his work station and asked if he had attended the union meeting the night before. Thomas replied in the affirmative and Moore simply shook his head. During the last week of March, Plant Manager Hewell spoke to the production employees as- sembled in the break room. He instructed the employees not to wear any union insignia on the company furnished clothing. Some employees, including Thomas, were wearing union pins on their smocks and personal shirts. Hewell did not tell any employees to remove pins from company clothing at this meeting. The union election was conducted on Friday, April 10, between the hours of 2 and 3:30 p.m. Employees were released to vote by sections. Thomas' production area was released at 2:30 p.m. but when he arrived at the poll there was a delay because about 40 Laotian employ- ees were having problems identifying themselves to the election observers. The plant had a Laotian interpreter but he was not at the poll. Thomas waited his turn to vote, did so, then on the way back to his production area stopped to get his paycheck.4 He arrived back at his work area at 3:25 p.m. Upon his arrival Jim Moore told Thomas that he was fired for coming back late from the election. Thomas denied that he was late and asked Moore if the two could talk after work. Moore said no to Thomas' request and Thomas said, "Well clock me out." Moore did not clock Thomas out so Thomas waited until 3:45 p.m., regular quitting time, and clocked out. While Thomas waited for quitting time several of the employees from his production area came back to work from the polling area. Moore did not discipline those several employees as they returned to work. The following Monday Thomas went to the plant to talk to Moore about going back to work. His timecard had discharged written on it. Thomas sought out Moore and asked why he was discharged. Moore told Thomas to wait until breaktime and he would tell him why. At 9:30 a.m. Moore took his break in the break room. 4 The Laotian employees worked in a production area that was re- leased before Thomas' production area. Thomas again asked "why" and Moore said because he came back late from the election and in a disorderly fashion. Thomas asked Moore if he believed in giving anyone a chance and Moore responded, "Well, I'm through with it and there's nothing else to do." At that, each went his separate way. Analysis and Conclusions The General Counsel contends that Mel Nibert, main- tenance supervisor, is an agent of Respondent, acting on its behalf and is a supervisor within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(11) of the Act. The record evidence establishes that Nibert had the responsibility of setting up the pro- duction floors including the repair and maintenance of the equipment. Nibert had the additional responsibility of directing the work of two shifts of employees with lead- persons reporting to him. Although the record is not en- tirely clear the evidence shows that Nibert assumed and exercised discipline of his subordinates including dis- charge and possessed substantial authority in the hiring procedures of the maintenance crew. In view of no con- tradiction of the evidence and because in my opinion Nibert does function as a supervisor I conclude and find that Nibert is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. The testimony of the conversations between Johnson and Nibert on January 9 and between Thomas and Moore on March 5 clearly shows that supervisors ques- tioned employees concerning their involvement in union activities. Such questioning occurring in the context of a union campaign could reasonably be considered as coer- cive. Particularly, when one considers that the employee solely responsible for the union intrusion is the first ques- tioned and the substance of the inquiry is the foundation of union support-authorization cards. Further, Moore's questioning invades Thomas' protected right to support the Union anonymously if he so desires. I therefore con- clude and find that Respondent through Nibert and Moore coercively interrogated employees about their union sympathies in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Keith's credited testimony of Supervisor Meaders' instructions pertaining to Keith's continued organizing efforts among her coworkers evinces an intentional at- tempt to stifle employees' guaranteed rights. It is obvious that Meaders overheard Keith discussing employee rights and unionism and determined to stop it. It is enough that Meaders proscribed conduct that Keith had a statutory right to engage in but he added insult to injury by taking Keith to the very location where protected activities are above reproach-the break room. Meaders' language de- scribing the vice to Keith is instructive, "talking about any damn union with my other employees, trying to in- fluence them." There is no doubt of Meaders' intent to stop the organizing efforts of Keith in areas clearly set aside and occurring at times clearly allowable by law. Meaders' oral rule against union solicitation promulgated to Keith on February 24 is in my view violative of Sec- tion 8(a)(1) and I so conclude and find. Meaders next attempted to strengthen production rules and administrative rules in his department. The motiva- 70 GREAT RECIPE PRODUCTS CORP. tion for such changes is unquestionably unlawful coming in the midst of the union campaign and void of any reason related to production or discipline. Meaders was simply getting a message to the employees that organiza- tional efforts would only get them tougher working con- ditions which could result in less take-home pay and swifter discipline not to mention the discomfort of inabil- ity to naturally relieve oneself at the most opportune time. The changes made by Meaders were memorialized by each employee's signature on a counseling report as an aid to enforcement should employees stumble over any rule. I conclude and find that Respondent, through Meaders, interfered with, restrained, and coerced em- ployees in the exercise of their guaranteed rights to self- organization by instituting rule changes designed to make working conditions more onerous and as a reprisal for employees engaging in protected activities. Such action by Meaders is violative of Section 8(aXl) of the Act. The testimony of Keith and Thomas focusing upon the instructions of Plant Manager Hewell with regard to the wearing of union insignia on work clothes requires con- sideration of all circumstances. Hewell centered his re- marks of removing the union insignia upon the company property (the smock furnished by the Employer to all employees which had to be worn in the production rooms) and the chance that the pin could fall into the product unobserved-two legitimate concerns in view of sanitation requirements for food processors. Although Hewell's display of surveying the room ostensibly to count the number of union buttons in view is indicative of an unlawful motivation the fact that Hewell did not order anyone to remove the union insignia is more pro- bative of motivation. Hewell's action in accepting em- ployee Jones' transfer of her union pin from the smock to her personal blouse shows that Hewell's purpose was simply to instruct the employees on sanitary discipline in the workplace. A similar discipline in the workplace was that employees could wear jewelry while working so long as it was covered by gloves, hairnet, or smock. The reasons again appear obvious. Respondent can, with im- punity, require the employees to display the union insig- nia only on personal belongings or on those things spe- cifically set aside for employee notices and parapherna- lia. For the above reasons, I conclude and find that Re- spondent has not violated the Act by the instructions issued on March 3 and 27 respecting the wearing of union pins on clothing while working. Counsel for the General Counsel alleges that three em- ployees were discriminatorily discharged during the union campaign. She contends that Respondent's motive in each of the discharges was the employees' display of support for the Union rather than what the employees were told at termination. The resolution is one of moti- vation. For counsel for the General Counsel to prevail she must establish a prima facie case which can only be overcome by competent, credible, rebutting evidence. Here, there is no rebutting evidence since Respondent chose not to appear. Therefore if the General Counsel's evidence establishes a prima facie case of discrimination the violations as alleged are proven. In the main the General Counsel must show that John- son, Keith, and Thomas engaged in protected activity, Respondent had knowledge of their protected activity, the action taken by Respondent against them was trig- gered by the protected activity, and Respondent dis- played animus against unions or supportive employees. The record evidence clearly establishes that Johnson, Keith, and Thomas did engage in protected activities and that Respondent had knowledge of each's protected ac- tivities. The coercive interrogation, unlawful no-solicita- tion rule, and the establishment of more onerous working conditions in reprisal for employees engaging in protect- ed activity, found above, conclusively evinces that Re- spondent harbored animus against the Union and John- son, Keith, and Thomas in particular. Johnson credibly testified that she had never been rep- rimanded for her job performance and had in the past been allowed to leave the plant for personal reasons. Keith credibly testified that she had been late clocking in only one time and that was the day of her discharge. She had never been warned of lateness nor was she ever criticized for her attitude toward her job. Thomas credibly testified that the time of his return to work from the polling place preceded several other em- ployees in his department who were also returning from voting and if an inordinate amount of time was taken in voting it was adequately explained by the difficulty expe- rienced with the Laotian voters. Thus the reasons assigned by Respondent for the dis- charges of Johnson, Keith, and Thomas are pretextual and the real motivation is the protected activity of John- son, Keith, and Thomas. Such motivation is proscribed by the Act and I conclude and find that Respondent vio- lated Section 8(aX3) of the Act when it discharged Jen- nifer Johnson on February 12, Kathy Keith on March 4, and Gregory Thomas on April 10. ADDITIONAL CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By discriminatorily discharging Jennifer Johnson, Kathy Keith, and Gregory Thomas, Respondent has vio- lated Section 8(a)(l1) and (3) of the Act. 2. Respondent, by interrogating Jennifer Johnson and Gregory Thomas concerning their union sympathies, has engaged in an unfair labor practice in violation of Sec- tion 8(a)(1) of the Act. 3. Respondent, by making working conditions more onerous and as a reprisal against its employees' protected activity has violated Section 8(aXl) of the Act. 4. Respondent, by prohibiting union solicitation of em- ployees on nonworktime in nonwork areas of the plant has violated Section 8(aX1) of the Act. 5. Respondent has not violated the Act by its instruc- tions to employees to cease wearing union insignia on the company furnished smock or apron while working. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find it necessary to order Re- spondent to cease and desist therefrom and to take cer- tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. 71 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent having discriminatorily discharged em- ployees Jennifer Johnson, Kathy Keith, and Gregory Thomas, I find it necessary to order it to offer them full reinstatement to their former positions or, if those posi- tions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, with backpay computed on a quarterly basis and interest thereon to be computed in the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Flor- ida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977),? from the date of their discharges to the date of a proper offer of reinstatement. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recom- mended: ORDER 6 The Respondent, Great Recipe Products Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging employees for engaging in protected activities. (b) Interrogating employees concerning their union sympathies. (c) Making working conditions more onerous as a reprisal for employees engaging in protected activities. (d) Prohibiting employees from engaging in union so- licitations on nonworktime in nonwork areas of the plant. See, generally, Isis Plumbing d Heating Ca, 138 NLRB 716 (1962). e 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 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 be deemed waived for all purposes. (e) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Expunge from its files any reference to the dis- charges of Jennifer Johnson, Kathy Keith, and Gregory Thomas, and notify each that this has been done. (b) Make Jennifer Johnson, Kathy Keith, and Gregory Thomas whole for their loss of earnings in the manner set forth in the remedy section of this Decision. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the National Labor Relations Board or its agents, for exami- nation and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and re- ports, and all other records necessary to effectuate the backpay provisions of this Order. (d) Post at its plant in Atlanta, Georgia, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."7 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 10, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con- secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov- ered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found. ? 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 Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Puru- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 72