Eastern Telecom Corp.

EASTERN TELECOM CORP 237' Eastern Telecom Corporation and Carole A. Snyder and Robert L. Wieland. Cases 6-CA-15663 and 6-CA-15803 13 December 1984 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS ZIMMERMAN AND .DENNIS On 16 June 1983 Administrative Law Judge Wil- liam A. Gershuny issued the attached decision. The General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed an answering brief. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,' and 1 The General Counsel has excepted to some of the judge's credibility findings The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administra- tive law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are Incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Or 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for re- versing the findings In addition, the General Counsel contends that the judge's credibility resolutions, factual findings, and legal conclusions are the result of bias After a careful examination of the entire record, we are satisfied that this allegation is withbut merit There is no basis for finding that bias and par- tiality existed merely because the judge resolved important factual con- flicts in favor of the Respondent's witnesses As the Supreme Court stated-in NLRB v Pittsburgh Steamship Co, 337 U S 656, 659 (1949), "[T]otal rejection of an opposed view cannot of itself impugn the integri- ty or competence of a trier of fact In sec III,B,(9) of his decision, the judge Incorrectly stated that Charg- ing Party Wieland "admitted making all the disparaging remarks, the threat to go to city council and telling co-employees about his litigation with a former employer" The record reveals, however, that Wieland only admitted making two of the disparaging remarks and telling other employees about his litigation with a former employer This error in the judge's findings does not affect his conclusions, because he relied on other independent evidence as to Wieland's threat and all of the disparag- ing statements In the paragraph titled "The sub-contractor•grievance" in sec 111,B of his decision, the judge Incorrectly stated that Local Union President Pe- terson testified Wieland's complaints about the Respondent's subcontract- in-g of unit work were never brought to the Respondent's attention Al- though' Peterson did testify that he told the Respondent of Wie- land's complaints, Peterson also testified that Wieland had complained di- rectly to the Respondent about the subcontracting Further, Respondent Director of Operations Gingery admitted that Wieland complained to him in May 1982 about the Respondent's use of subcontractors to do bar- gaining unit work, and the judge found that Wieland questioned Re- spondent Administrative Assistant Yocco about subcontracting in June 1982 when Yocco informed employee Smith he would be laid off We do not rely on the judge's erroneous finding in adopting his decision Rather, we note there is no evidence that the Respondent expressed any animus toward Wieland's subcontracting complaints or that his complaints to Gingery in May and to Yocco in June played any part in the Respond- ent's decision to discharge him in September In par 4 of sec III,C of his decision, the judge incorrectly stated that "help was needed due to the maternity leave of one clerk and the vaca- tion of another" The record establishes, however, that no employee was conclusions 2 and to adopt the recommended Order 3 as modified. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Re- spondent, Eastern Telecom CorpOration, Monroe- ville, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified: 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1: "1. Cease and desist from "(a) Soliciting its employees to take their griev- ances directly to it rather than attempting to obtain redress through the contractual grievance proce- dure or through other protected activities. "(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex- ercise of the rights 'guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act." 2. Add the following as paragraph 2(b): "(b) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply. 3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the administrative law judge. , on maternity leave when the Respondent recalled Snyder This error in the judge's findings does not affect his conclusions, and we do not rely on it in adopting his decision In the paragraph titled "Wieland as stew- ard- in sec III,B of his decision, the judge incorrectly stated that there were two other stewards instead of one We therefore correct this inad- vertent error 2 The General Counsel argues that the judge erred in concluding that the Respondent discharged Wieland for cause, pointing to evidence not addressed by the judge that on two occasions Respondent President Cluodo called Wieland "a troublemaker" and linked these comments to either a threat to get rid of Wieland or his actual discharge Inasmuch as the record reveals that Chiodo also made similar statements about the other union steward, Grimes, but the Respondent did not discharge him and that the Respondent had fired other employees for the same conduct as it discharged Wieland, we agree w s the judge that the Respondent decided to discharge Wieland solely because of his poor work perform- ance, not because of any protected activities in which he may have par- ticipated, and that the Respondent would have made the same decision regardless of whether Wieland engaged in any protected activities Fur- thermore, we note that Chiodo's vague "troublemaker" references were not in most cases specifically directed at any possibly protected activities, but rather were usually linked to Wieland's abuse of privileges or poor job performance and that the judge credited Chiodo's testimony that he considered Wieland a troublemaker because Wieland had called him names, threatened to slash his tires, and threatened to obstruct the sale of part of his business by revealing damaging information 3 We have modified the judge's recommended Order to add the stand- ard language requiring the Respondent to refrain from violating the Act "in any like or related manner" and requiring the Respondent to notify the Regional Director of its compliance We have also modified the judge's notice to conform to our Order 273 NLRB No. 40 238 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor, Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice. WE WILL NOT solicit our employees to take their grievances directly to us, rather than attempting to obtain redress through the contractual grievance procedure or through other protected activities. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise . of the rights guaranteed them by Sec- tion 7 of the Act. EASTERN TELECOM CORPORATION DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE WILLIAM A. GERSHUNY, Administrative Law Judge. A consolidated hearing was held in Pittsburgh, Pennsyl- vania, on February ; 14-17 and April 11-12, 1983, on complaints alleging a number of 8(a)(1) violations, the unlawful layoff of nonbargaming unit employee Carole Snyder and the unlawful discharge of her friend, Stew- ard Robert Wieland, on September 8, 1982. 1 A third complaint, Case 6-CA-_-15630, alleging a number of 8(a)(5) violations was settled on the opening day of the hearing. - - On the entire record, including my observation of wit- ness demeanor, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I JURISDICTION The complaints allege, the answers admit, and I find that Respondent is an employer subject to the Act. II. LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The complaints allege, the answers admit, and I find that Local Union 126, IBEW is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. III. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES - A. Background Respondent operates a number of cable television sys- tems in the Pittsburgh area. Its main office is in Monroe- ville and it has another office in Mt Lebanon to service operations in that area Repsondent (and predecessors) has recognized and bargained with Local 126 since 1968 and the current 1 Wieland filed, and later withdrew, a grievance over his discharge contract covering technicians expires April 30, 1983. Ad- mittedly, its relationship with the Union over the years has been good, there have been no unfair labor practice charges, all disputes have been resolved amicably with- out resort to arbitration, and there is no history of union animus. B. The Wieland Discharge on September 8, 1982 By letter dated September 8, 1982, Robert Wieland, the Company's highest grade technician and union stew- ard for the Mt. Lebanon operations, was discharged by Administrative Assistant and Director of Personnel Yocco. The stated grounds were numerous: (1) The unauthorized ' use of company telephones for long-distance toll calls during. March-May. On July 22, he was confronted with bills. Restitution was demanded and made, and he received a written warning Other em- ployees (including steward Grimes) received .similar de- mands and warnings Wieland admitted the facts. No grievance was filed (2) The failure to bond and ground connections to telephone lines, contrary to safe practices, company policy, ; and the Company's contractual obligation with the telephone company: Wieland was leader of the crew which performed the work Wieland admitted the facts and received a reprimand on August 6, following a tele- phone company complaint on August 3. ,.No grievance was filed. (3) The failure on September 1 (and other days) to bury a Cable connected to a customer's house,-'contrary to specific instructions and a v■T'ritten company policy an- nounced August 3, and his issuance of verbal instructions to other employees not to bury cable and not to worry about it. Wieland admitted not ;burying cable at the time of installation, stating that the ground often was hard and he lacked proper digging equipment or the time and that other technicians similarly failed to bury cable on occasion. Once, the Cable ,Was left on a driveway. (4) The damage of a company vehicle in January 1982, requiring repairs in the amount of $155. (5) The inability to understand and perform work as- signed on August 20 to Wieland within the scope of his superior classification, resulting in the loss of a full day of labor and necessitating performance of the work by a supervisor. He 'did not ask for assistance or blueprints and his wiring on the "head end" was a "mess." (6) Two customer complaints in late August of failure to provide home service when'scheduled. Wieland had marked work orders with the notation that the customer was not home, contrary to the fact. (7) The scheduling of followup customer service, con- trary to company policy which states that all service calls are to be scheduled only by office personnel who have responsibility for their coordination. Wieland admit- ted doing ;so, stating that often irate customers have to be told something. . (8) The failure .to hook up a cable on September 3, as called for by a work order. (9) The making of disparaging remarks about Compa- ny President Chiodo ("fat SOB" and "bastard") in con- versations with other employees, disparaging remarks to EASTERN TELECOM CORP 239 customers that company equipment was "outdated, obso- lete, old and in need of repair", threats to report how bad the cable system was to city council which licensed the system and was then considering an extension of the license, if he were discharged, threats to "get even" with the Company for laying off his girl friend, Charging Party Snyder, and threats to "do the same" to Respond- ent as he had done to a former employer who had dis- charged him and paid Wieland money in settlement of a claim He admitted making all the disparaging remarks, the threat to go to city council, and tellmg co-employees about his litigation with a former employer His reasons in part, because they were true, in part, because he was angry with Respondent for having reassigned him from the Monroeville office (near his home and where his girl friend worked) to-the Mt Lebanon office where he was needed because of his classification Significant also are statements to nonbargaimng unit co-employees, after his transfer to Mt Lebanon, that he had records and photo- graphs to show that' the system was bad, that he intended to get back at the Company because of his transfer, and Respondent's refusal to allow him (or other employees) personal use of company trucks, that he was going to "nail his ass" (referring to the company president) with those records, and that he had taken a former employer for a lot of money and was going to "take" the Compa- ny "for all he could get" Noteworthy is the fact that neither the transfer nor the truck-use policy is alleged to be unlawful The record evidence is overwhelming that actual cause existed for Wieland's discharge on the grounds that he was incompetent, insubordinate, careless, disloy- al, and dishonest Nor was there disparate treatment of Wieland Another shop steward similarly was required to make payment for unauthorized toll calls and the truck- use policy applied to all Other employees occasionally did not bury cables at time of installation, but none with the regularity of Wieland and no other employee directly disobeyed specific instructions to do so There is evi- dence proffered that other employees slandered the president, but their remarks fall well afield of Wieland's Another employee damaged a truck, but the when, where, and how are unexplained Other employees were the subject of customer complaints, but Wieland was the subject of far more complaints and followup calls than all other employees Indeed, another employee was simi- larly discharged for similar conduct The real issue is whether the discharge decision was also based in part on any protected concerted activity which Wieland may have engaged in For reasons set forth below, I conclude that the decision was bottomed solely and exclusively on work performance and not on any protected activity and that Respondent would have taken the same course regardless of whether Wieland en- gaged in any such activity For this reason, there is no occasion to consider whether Wieland's disparagement of the ccmpany cable system and its president was so de- structive of the employment relationship as to make inap- propriate the usual remedy of reinstatement The General Counsel's principal witness in both cases is Charging Party Wieland Moreover, the keystone to the General Counsel's case is comprised of "admissions" of unlawful company motive allegedly made in July and August by Supervisor Turak to Wieland prior to the July 15 layoff of Snyder and the September 8 discharge of Wieland For these reasons, the credibility of Wieland must be addressed at the outset In doing so, it must be said that the record in this case raises critical credibility issues, not of the run-of-the mill variety involving faulty memory, misperceived motives, misconstrued actions, and misinterpreted words Rather, this record is strongly suggestive of evidence manufac- tured for purposes of this case It is helpful, I believe, to first consider the unusual cir- cumstances surrounding the emergence of Turak as a source of evidence damning to Respondent Turak was Wieland's supervisor and social friend when the latter was transferred to Mt Lebanon in late June Wieland tes- tified that Turak admitted (a) that he had been instructed by the Company to reprimand Wieland, (b) that the Company was watching both Wieland and his girl friend and housemate, Carole Snyder, (c) that Carole Snyder was laid off to provoke Wieland into giving Respondent grounds for discharge, (d) that he was told by the Com- pany to deny Wieland assistance on an assignment, (e) Wieland would soon be given a difficult job in an effort to demote him, (f) that Wieland's visit to the Board of- fices would "cause war", (g) that the Company was out to get Wieland, and (h) that Wieland was being watched These "admissions" were made by Turak to Wieland before his discharge on September 8, yet none were the subject of Wieland's charge of September 10 or the com- plaint which issued October 7 Presumably they were not mentioned in any of Wieland's first three affidavits given to the Board between September 10 and 21 It was not until the amended complaint of February 1, 1983, 2 weeks before the hearing, that Turak's role emerged in the form of seven allegations of violations of Section 8(a)(1) Presumably, Turak's role first was disclosed to the Board in Wieland's affidavit of January 26, 1983 This sequence of events—actual knowledge of admissions by Wieland in July and August when he was addressed by Turak, first disclosure and first allegations in early January 1983, and Turak's quitting his job in August 1982 and, by early 1983, his disappearance—raises grave suspicions as to the credibly generally of Wieland Of even greater importance, however, is my inability to credit Wieland based simply on my observation of him on the witness stand during his extended examma- tion On direct, his testimony was extensive and detailed, recounting numerous events and conversations over a 6- month period with recourse to no notes or other docu- ments On cross-examination, his testimony became vague vague, uncertain, exaggerated, and contradictory and he displayed a reluctance to admit to any fact which he perceived to be harmful to this case He admitted making the basest of derogatory remarks concerning the company president and the cable system to get back at the Company for transferring him (admittedly lawfully) to another office where he was needed, he admitted that he gave conflicting evidence in an unemployment com- pensation hearing, in his affidavit, and at this hearing as to Respondent's knowledge of his activity regarding a 240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD union grievance over use of subcontractors, and he ad- mitted he similarly gave conflicting testimony as to whether he was asked by Turak about his visit to Board Offices In Wieland's zeal to support the allegation, it is my belief that he shut his eyes to the facts I reject his testi- mony in its entirety This credibility finding thus disposes of paragraphs 11(a)(1)-(5) and 12(a)(1)-(7) and (b) of the complaint as amended The General Counsel contends that Wieland engaged in a number of activities protected under Section 7 of the Act and that each played a part in the decision to dis- charge Wieland 1 The subcontractor grievance This gnevance was filed by the Union on August 27 and since has been arbitrated with the grievance being denied According to the testimony of Local Union President Peterson, Wieland had complained to him many times about the Company's use of subcontractors to do bargaining unit work, but that Wieland's involve- ment never was brought to the attention of the Compa- ny Thus, this activity could not have come within the Section 7 umbrella and could not have been a part of Respondent's decision 2 Wieland's June 16 discussion with Yocco On June 16, Director of Personnel Yocco informed technician Smith that he was to be laid off because of cutbacks Present was Wieland, who was not yet a stew- ard Wieland asked if subcontractors were to be used, Yocco replied it was not his decision, and Wieland ad- vised Smith to talk with the steward The layoff decision was revoked 2 days later for unexplained reasons As- suming, without deciding, that Wieland's fleeting in- volvement in the Smith layoff constitutes protected con- certed activity, I am unable to find any evidence that this event played any role whatsoever in the discharge decision Wieland's role was innocuous and there is no suggestion on this record that any ill will was generated 3 Wieland's uniform and training discussions Wieland, both before and after his appointment as steward, was outspoken in his opposition to a company plan that employees who make calls on private homes wear uniforms and to a company practice of providing training classes to benefit its employees who contractual- ly are required to pass tests for advancement The Com- pany had heard that Wieland was circulating a petition Local Union President Peterson advised Wieland that the issues were not covered under the contract The uni- forms were the suggestion of municipalities for security purposes Chiodo, Respondent's president, in a conversa- tion with Peterson, referred to Wieland as a troublemak- er and the latter assumed the reference was to classes and uniforms issues Chiodo, however, used the phrase to refer to Wieland's abusive attitude following his transfer to Mt Lebanon and his loss of the use of company trucks for personal reasons I credit Chiodo's testimony as it is fully consistent with the totality of events, of which Peterson was unaware and, thus, was left to spec- ulate about Cluodo's meaning Again, I am unable to detect any record suggestion that this series of events, which culminated on July 14, left any bitter aftertaste in the minds of Respondent's officials, despite the fact that employees originally (in June) had voted for uniforms, only to unanimously reject them on July 14 Given the other events of the same period (e g , Wieland's disparag- ing remarks and his negligent work which necessitated many followup calls, all of which began in late June), I can neither find nor Infer that such activities, assuming them to be protected and concerted under the Act, played any role whatsoever in the discharge decision Simply stated, they were overshadowed and cast aside by those events which actually formed the basis for the discharge decision 4 Wieland as steward Wieland, at his request, was appointed steward on July 8 There were two other stewards Chiodo admittedly was not unhappy or upset to learn of the appointment and there is no evidence of animus toward other stew- ards As steward, Wieland processed no grievances, par- ticipated in no negotiations, and, to the knowledge of the Union, engaged in no other activities as steward An- other steward was required to make restitution for unau- thorized toll calls and was on the receiving end of a number of remarks which are familiar subjects of 8(a)(1) allegations No such allegations are included in the present complaint and, on the first day of the hearing, counsel for the General Counsel represented that the present case involves no allegations of harassment of Wieland because of his status as steward There is evi- dence that Wieland detained co-employees from begin- ning their service calls in the morning, but the only evi- dence of subject matter relates, on one occasion, to an upcoming union meeting There is no evidence that Re- spondent was aware of the subject matter of this discus- sion and, in any event, no protected activities are in- volved I fitisl and conclude that the discharge of Wieland was not unlawful C The Layoff of Carole Snyder Carole Snyder, a girl friend and housemate of Wie- land, was laid off on July 15 2 The General Counsel's case as to Snyder is a denvative one It is not based on any protected concerted activity on her part—indeed, there was none Rather, it is the General Counsel's theory that she was a pawn in Respondent's efforts to re- taliate against Wieland for his protected concerted activi- ties 2 By Order of March 24, 1983, the Board granted the General Coun- sel's special appeal and directed that the General Counsel be permitted to amend the complaint in the middle of Respondent's case, to allege that Snyder also was unlawfully laid off on November 12, 1983, following a 2-week temporary recall At the hearing, the General Counsel conceded that this November 12 layoff was not intended to allege an independent violation, but was simply evidentiary in nature, relevant to the Issue of Respondent's motive for the original layoff EASTERN TELECOM CORP 241 Because Wieland's discharge was not unlawful, and for the further reason that the layoff of Snyder was motivat- ed solely and exclusively by economic factors, these alle- gations must be dismissed It is undisputed that Snyder was at all relevant times a good and able employee m Respondent's Monroeville office In 1982, the clerical work was divided among four clerks Snyder and Carr handled the Plum cable system, and Keebler yet another Of the four, Carr was most semor Although Snyder had worked exclusively with the Plum system, she could have (and, indeed, did) worked on the other systems with minimal on-the-job training On July 15, she was abruptly laid off in the middle of the day for economic reasons No replacement was hired and no other clerk was transferred into the position, except that, from time to time, the receptionist gave lim- ited assistance to Carr It is uncontroverted that other cutbacks were made, other employees were laid off, and Respondent lost money in 1982 The decision was based on Director of Personnel Yocco's determination that only one clerk was necessary to handle the Plum system Snyder was chosen because she was single and less senior to Carr, the other clerk working on the Plum system, and because Carr was an unmamed mother No consideration was given to the layoff of clerks working on other systems and the transfer of Snyder to perform work on those other systems Thereafter, she requested and received from Chiodo a laudatory letter of recom- mendation which restated the reason for her layoff as the institution of a more efficient office procedure On No- vember 1, she was recalled for 2 weeks because, in the opinion of the office manager, help was needed due to the recent maternity leave of one clerk and the vacation of another I reject the testimony of Snyder (that 2 hours before her layoff, Chief Technician Flynn said to her, "I guess you know why Chiodo is upset") and that of Carr (that, at the time of the layoff, Chiodo said to her, "Snyder was involved because she was living with Wieland," who had sent certain unidentified information to the Union, and that, several weeks later, Flynn told her that he had warned Snyder "what would happen") Carr ad- mittedly was hysterical on July 15 and, thus, an unreli- able reporter of events Moreover, her bias was patent Even crediting Snyder, Flynn's reference to Chiodo's upset would be nothing more than what Snyder already would have learned from Wieland himself—that Chiodo was upset by Wieland's disparaging remarks and his threats to go to city council, which could interfere with relicensing and an impending sale of the Company, in- volving millions of dollars But I credit Flynn that no such statements were made I was particularly impressed with the feelings that, despite his supervisory status, Flynn was not involved at all in the controversy and that he related events as they in fact occurred I also credit Cluodo's denial A big, gruff, self-made man with an amiable relationship with the Union for 15 years, Chiodo was a candid and convincing witness, based on my observation of his demeanor on the witness stand Moreover, his testimony is consistent with the admitted facts concerning Wieland's seeking revenge for his trans- fer to Mt Lebanon in late June and his loss of truck privileges based on his misuse and abuse of the privilege in the past For these reasons, I am convinced beyond any doubt that the decision to layoff Snyder was motivated solely by financial considerations, unrelated in whole or in part to any activities, protected or unprotected on the part of Wieland D Chiodo's July 14 Meeting With Employees On July 14, having heard "rumbles" concerning uni- forms and training, Chiodo called a meeting of all techni- cians and servicemen dunng working hours Admittedly, the meeting was a "gripe session," with Chiodo stating that he heard rumors of employee gripes and asking what they were When he got no response, he asked whether they wanted uniforms There was no response He asked whether they wanted training classes for ad- vancement tests Again, there was no response He stated that, without study, advancement tests would be harder to pass' He then aired a gripe of his own the abuse of a prior policy concerning personal use of company trucks He announced that that policy was being revoke& be- cause of one "troublemaker" (pointing to Wieland) who "has abused it" No other mention was made of Wieland by Chiodo either during or after the meeting Expressing his concern for employee-company relations, Chiodo in- vited employees to come directly tc him with their prob- lems The General Counsel alleges a number of 8(a)(1) viola- tions arising out of this meeting First, it is alleged that Chiodo denigrated and threatened to discharge employ- ees because of their union and other protected activities Crediting the testimony of Chiodo for the reasons set forth above, I find no factual basis for these allegations Next, it is alleged that he informed employees that work- ing conditions would be more onerous because they did not want to attend training classes in preparation for ad- vancement tests This allegation also is unfounded Chio- do's statement tests would be more difficult to pass is simply a common sense statement of fact that, without training, any test is more difficult to pass There is no evidence or suggestion that Respondent controls the sub- ject of the tests which, under the contract, are under the control of the Joint Committee Nor is there an 8(a)(5) allegation that Respondent has unilaterally altered the testing levels Finally it is alleged that Cinodo solicited employee gnevances and complaints to "interfere" with employees' Section 7 rights This allegation is well founded Board precedent is clear that employer solicita- tion of employee grievances and employer initiations to use the "open door" to air such grievances is unlawful because it has the effect, regardless of employer motive, of interfering with employee use of he contractual griev- ance procedure and the exercise of Section 7 rights gen- erally See, e g, Martin-Bower Co 273 NLRB 194 (1982) 3 Neither these consolidated complaints nor the one which was the subject of a settlement on February 14, 1983, alleged that revocation of this policy was unilateral and unlawful 242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THE REMEDY Having found and concluded that Respondent has vio- lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, Respondent shall be or- dered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed4 ORDER The Respondent Eastern Telecom Corporation Mon- roeville, Pennsylvama, its officers, agents, succesors, and assigns, shall 1 Cease and desist from soliciting employees to take grievances directly to their employer, rather than at- 4 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur- poses tempting to obtain redress under the contractual griev- ance procedures or through other protected activities 2 Post at all of its locations where bargaining unit em- ployees are assigned, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A "5 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 6, after being signed by the Respondent's authonzed representa- tive, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other materi- al 5 If 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 Na- tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation- al Labor Relations Board" 41.•