Pottsville Bleaching And Dyeing Co.

1236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Pottsville Bleaching and Dyeing Company and Joseph Sullivan . Case 4-CA-14512 _- 30 July 1985 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS HUNTER AND DENNIS On 12 February 1985 Administrative Law Judge James L. Rose issued the attached decision. The Respondent and the General Counsel each filed ex- ceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief to the Respond- ent's exceptions.. - 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', I and conclusions as modified, 2 and to adopt the recom- ' mended Order. - ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law Judge and orders that the Respondent, Pottsville Bleaching and Dyeing, Company, Port-Carbon, i The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find- ings The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative 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 Cir 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing" the findings - We note the Respondent's contention that the judge omitted from his decision a "critical" portion of the testimony of George Alton, one of the two employees with whom•Charging Party Joseph Sullivan was talking at the time of the 18 May 1984 incident We have examined this testimo- ny, and find that it does not contradict the judge's ultimate conclusion that the Respondent violated Sec 8(a)(3) Alton's omitted testimony does not corroborate the testimony of Richard Horton, the Respondent's plant' manager who confronted Sullivan in the 18 May 1984 incident More- - over, the judge discredited Horton's testimony on the basis of Horton's demeanor Thus, there is no credited evidence that it was Sullivan rather than Horton who first became loud and•botsterous as urged by the Re- spondent In such circumstances, we find the Respondent's reliance on an alleged October 1983 incident, which the judge did not discuss,,to be ir- relevant - 2 We find it unnecessary to rely on the Judge's comments in par 4 of sec 11,B, "Analysis and Concluding Findings," of his decision regarding what "experience" demonstrates We also find it unnecessary to rely on , the judge's conclusion that Sullivan was known to be the "principal em; ployee" active in the 1983 organizational campaign, but rather we find it sufficient to note that he'was known by the Respondent to be one 'of the most active employees in that campaign We further find 'it' unnecessary = to rely on the judge's finding that the Respondent's admonition to its su- pervisors to keep Sullivan off the "wet floor" and from talking to other employees was motivated by union animus We note that the Respondent's supervisor George Hosler resigned on 6 February 1984, although the judge's decision states that he resigned on 4 February 1983 Finally, we correct the judge's inadvertent error of omit- ting the word "not" between the words "does vindicate" in par • 19 of _ sec ILB, "Analysis and Concluding Findings," of his decision - Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set "forth in the Order. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JAMES L. ROSE, Administrative 'Law Judge This matter was tried before me on November 29 and 30, 1984,1 at Pottsville , Pennsylvania, o_ n the General Coun- sel's complaint2 alleging that about May 18 the Respond- ent discharged its employee Joseph 'Sullivan in violation of Section' 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the National Labor Rela- tions_ Act, 29 U.S C. § 151 et seq The Respondent gener- ally denied that it violated the Act contending that Sulli- van "engaged in conduct justifying his discharge " On the record as a whole, including my observation of the witnesses and after due consideration of the briefs and arguments of counsel , I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. JURISDICTION - The Respondent is a Pennsylvania corporation en- gaged in the bleaching and dyeing of tubular fabrics at various facilities, • including one at Port Carbon, Pennsyl- vania, the facility involved in this matter During the course of its business the Respondent annually sells and ships directly to points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania products valued in excess of $50,000. I therefore conclude' the Respondent is, an -employer en- gaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(2); (6), and (7) of the Act.. - The parties stipulated that Teamsters Union Local No. 115, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen. and Helpers of Amer- ica (the Union), at all times material has been a labor or- ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES -A. Background and' Undisputed Facts - The Respondent operates two plants in the Pottsville vicinity, one at Port Carbon and the other at Schuylkill Haven. From about 1953, employees of both plants com- prised one bargaining unit represented by Local 273, In- dependent Bleaching -and Dyeing Union. In 1979 these employees apparently determined to affiliate with an international organization and at that time contacted an official of the Union (or one of its sister locals) Howev- er, because of some trade jurisdiction problem,' the Union declined the opportunity to . represent them and they went to Roofers, Local 30. An organizational campaign was begun, but before the representation matter was re- solved Local 30'ceased the campaign due to the death of its .president. • Then ihere was organizational activity on behalf of the United Food and Commercial Workers - as well as the i All dates are in 1984 unless otherwise indicated 2 The charge was-filed on July 12 and -the complaint was issued on August 24 • 275 NLRB No. 175 POTTSVILLE BLEACHING CO Textile Workers as a result of which the multiplant unit was split and employees at the Schuylkill Haven plant became 'represented by the United Food and Commercial Workers. The Textile Workers Union was rejected by a majority of the employees at Port Carbon. In 1982 Port Carb on employees again contacted the Union, and this time the Union indicated that it could represent them. An organizational campaign began in early 1982 and an election was held sometime in August with employees voting against representation by the Union Objections were filed and a rerun election was held in December 1982 with the Union again failing to receive a majority of the'votes. Some employees and the Union determined to start organizing again in the fall of 1983.3 The parties stipulated that on November 30, 1983, a petition was filed in Case 4-RC-15505 and an' election was held on January 26 and 27. The tally of ballots shows that 65 votes were cast for and 66 against the Union with no challenged ballots. Objections were filed but were overruled and a certification of results was issued on March 29 Joseph Sullivan started work for the Respondent at the Port Carbon plant on August 16, 1965, and during the incumbency of the independent union served in vari- ous steward capacities. During the organizational cam- paigns, particularly including the one in 1983, Sullivan was one of the employees most active on behalf of the Union, a fact which was known to various responsible management officials. At the election he was a union ob- server Indeed, even after the Union lost the 1984 elec- tion, Sullivan purchased and wore at the plant a jacket with the Union's name and logo on the back of it. Only in argument did the Respondent deny knowledge. of Sul- livan's principal role in campaigning for the Union The' Respondent's witnesses did not dispute the testimony of Sullivan and others establishing such knowledge-pass- ing out literature in view of management officials and statements by them. On March 29 Sullivan injured his back while at work and was off for approximately a month. At the sugges- tion of his doctor, when Sullivan returned to work he changed jobs to one involving less lifting. He became a utility man whose duties are to take work to employees operating machines. On May 14, shortly after returning to work, Sullivan was called into the office of Plant Manager Richard M. Horton, who stated, "You're in here for missing Satur- days." Sullivan said that as a result of his injury, he had difficulty working 5 days a week much less 6. Horton stated that he had spoken to the doctor, who indicated that there were no restrictions on Sullivan's release to return to work On May 17, Sullivan had an appointment with the doctor, at which time he received a note 'which states: "The patient should work for fourty hours per week for next four weeks." - ' 9 This history is based on the undisputed testimony of Joseph Sullivan His testimony covers events of a rather complex nature occuring some years ago and is therefore not particularly definitive However, it suffices for purposes of background to the events at issue 1237 On arriving for work on May 18; Sullivan submitted this note to his immediate supervisor; James Walsh: Ac- cording to Sullivan's undenied testimony, Walsh looked at the note, shrugged,'and`returned it to him. Later that morning, Sullivan was observed by Horton talking to two machine operators, George Alton and Marty Dross. Horton approached them telling Dross to return to his machine, and would have told Alton also, but he already had done so. Then began a confrontation between Sullivan and Horton Which-resulted in Sulli- van's discharge. The above outline is based on Sullivan's undenied and generally credible testimony. What transpired following Horton's approaching the three employees on May 18,is in dispute and indeed forms the gravamen of this contro- versy. The Respondent generally contends that Sullivan immediately began to act in a, disruptive and insubordi- nate manner, and his continued behavior in such fashion was the sole cause of his discharge, On May 25 and three subsequent times Sullivan met with representatives of management as well as the "prob- lem solving committee." The result of these meetings was to ratify Horton's determination to discharge Sulli- van on May 18. While there appears to be some question as to whether Sullivan was actually discharged on May 18 or May 25, there is no question that he was sent home by Horton on May 18 and was not allowed to work,thereafter. B. Analysis and Concluding Findings The General Counsel alleges that Sullivan was dis- charged because of his known activity as a leader on behalf of the Union's organizational campaign. The Re- spondent contends'that the sole=basis of Sullivan's termi- nation was his acts of insubordination on May 18.4 As will be set forth in more detail below, the credible evidence establishes that the Respondent, and particular- ly Horton, knew of Sullivan's "activity on behalf of the Union having observed him passing out leaflets at the plant gate, which activity 'Sullivan did not abandon fol- lowing the election as shown' by his wearing the union jacket; that the Respondent, and particularly Horton, harbored animus against Sullivan for this 'activity; that Horton's discharge of Sullivan occurred in close proximi- ty to the end of the' most recent organizational campaign, when one considers Sullivan was off from ,work'for ap- proximately a month immediately following the -certifi- cate of results; that Horton initiated the confrontation ac- cusing Sullivan of dereliction of duty but without investi- gation; that Sullivan's reaction to Horton's accusation was not of the character testified-to by Horton, that Sul- livan' is the only 'employee ever discharged by Horton for "insubordination' ; and, f pally, that Sullivan was an' employee with nearly 19 years' service who undeniably was competent even though he had a reputation for being "loud." - '. " . 4 The Respondent brought forth some evidence of prior alleged acts of misconduct by Sullivan which were not offered as a basis for his dis- charge but rather to support the credibility of the Respondent's witnesses and as an attack on Sullivan's credibility 1238 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Finding these facts, I conclude that the reason ad- vanced by the Respondent is pretext to disguise Horton's true motive in discharging Sullivan. I,conclude that Sul- livan was discharged for his union activity, absent which Horton would not have initiated the confrontation nor would he have discharged Sullivan. The Act, does not prohibit an employer from discharg- ing an employee for any reason, or indeed no reason at all, other than where motivated by that employee's union or other protected 'activity., Thus, the Act does not pro- scribe unreasonable or irrational management decisions affecting the tenure of employees. However, experience has shown that managers do not precipitately discharge long-term, competent employees. Experience demon- strates that where an employee of Sullivan's tenure and competence is discharged such is based on a sound reason. However, where-the stated cause is unreasonable under the circumstances, that fact is itself evidence that the employer is seeking to disguise its true motive. Shat- tuck Denn Mining Corp. v. NLRB, 362 F 2d 466 (9th Cir. 1966). During the organizational campaign in the fall of 1983, one morning prior to' their shift, 'Sullivan and others were outside the plant passing out union literature. Horton walked by, looked at Sullivan, and went in the building. Sullivan then punched in ' at his regular 'time and went to his job. Horton came over to him and said, "You need your ass kicked good." This event was cor- roborated by employee Ron Downey and was undenied by Horton. s Demonstrating animus against unions in general, one morning when employees were handbilling the 'plant, a leaflet was offered, to Walsh, who stated, "If anybody. at my house . .' . belonged, to the union, I'd throw them the hell out." This testimony of Sullivan was corroborat- ed by Downey and was not denied by Walsh As to animus,against Sullivan specifically, in Decem- ber 1983 Walsh told employee Daniel Daubert, "Well, I told management that •I would take a punch, to aggra- vate Joe Sullivan enough that a punch in the mouth from him, so they can get rid of him, and management said so, they'd handle it themselves." This testimony of Daubert was generally credible and was not denied by Walsh.. Employee Kevin Jefferson testified that shortly after Sullivan was "suspended" he saw Supervisors Walsh, Charlie Rubright, and Frank Broadhead talking. Walsh said to Broadhead, about Sullivan, "We've got to get rid of him," and, "Got rid of the union guys, and we're. going to get rid' of some more. union guys now." This testimony of Jefferson was credible and was undenied by Walsh. Broadhead was called as a witness in.surrebuttal denying. that Walsh had made a different statement or that he himself had said, "We'll try to get rid .of the union guys." He did not specifically deny the instant to which Jefferson testified.' Thus, upon Jefferson's, general- ly credible -demeanor, absent denial of this event by Walsh, and at-best a negative pregnant denial by, Broad- 5 A reprimand of Sullivan by Horton during , this period was offered by the Respondent as background In this context the reprimand is suspect In any event, , such does not serve to support an adverse finding on Sulli- van's credibility head, I find that following. Sullivan's discharge Walsh made a statement to fellow supervisors the essence-of which was that Sullivan was discharged for union activi- ty. Finally, in the fall of 1983 at a meeting of supervisors conducted by a management relations firm, Sullivan along with Downey and Dross were singled out as lead- ers of the organizational campaign. Supervisors were in- structed to keep Sullivan, off the wet floor and from talk- ing to other employees. This is from the generally credi- ble testimony of the Respondent's former assistant super- visor Darryl Linebar. The fact that such a meeting took place was not denied by the Respondent, Horton testify- ing, only in vague terms that he did not remember the statements relating to Sullivan On balance, I accept the testimony .of Linebar and conclude that in fact supervi- sors were instructed that Sullivan was the leader of the organizational campaign and to take action to see that he not talk to other, employees. The overwhelming credible evidence in this matter, undenied in material respects by, the Respondent, is that Sullivan was known to be the principal employee active in the 1983 organizational campaign and that manage- ment representatives of-the Respondent,'particularly in- cluding-Walsh and Horton, harbored animus against Sul- livan for his activity. And following the election, Sulli- van demonstrated that he had not given up. He bought and wore a union jacket. Nevertheless, , the Respondent, through the testimony of Horton and. Walsh, sought to establish that Sullivan acted in such insubordinate manner on May 18 and his discharge was for cause. However, the credible evi- dence, including admissions, by Horton, establishes that at best, Sullivan's insubordination occurred after Horton had commenced an unlawful discipline of him. Thus, Horton testified that he observed Sullivan talk- ing to employees Alton and Dross, both of whom were machine operators. According to Horton, he approached them and told Dross to return to his machine and turned to Alton but Alton had already done so Horton testified he said: "Joe, I don't want you keeping people from their work. I don't want you keeping them talking with them so that they can't get their jobs done " And, at that moment, he just became very boisterous. His arms 'flew up in the air and he says, "That's the second time that you've threatened me this week." -While admitting that Sullivan's job was such that he reasonably could have been where he was on May 18 talking to employees about work related matters, Horton did not inquire as 'to whether this was the fact. Thus, from Horton's own testimony when he saw the three employees talking, he told two of them to return to their work and reprimanded the third, the known union activ- ist. In short, Horton determined that Sullivan was en- gaged in misconduct (which was not obvious from his observation) without the slightest investigation - And from ,the Respondent's witness Alton, Horton went further-he told- Sullivan to report to the office. Thus, Alton, 'testified on his direct examination that he, POTTSVILLE BLEACHING CO Dross, and Sullivan were talking and, "Just at that time, around the front of the machine, Mr. Horton walked around and said to Joe, `Come' down • to the office. I want to talk to you."' The principal basis'of the Respondent's contention that Sullivan was discharged for cause is Horton's testimony concerning Sullivan's reaction-that he became loud, boisterous, and was ranting and raving. Sullivan denied he did so. I credit Sullivan's denial primarily because a more reliable witness to this event-one less involved and with the least stake in the outcome-corroborates Sullivan. Alton further testified: Q. What happened when Mr. Horton arrived on the scene? A. Well, Mr Horton came around the machine, in front of the machine, walked up to Joe and said, "Joe come down to the office. I want to talk with you." So, just- Q. Did Mr Horton make a statement to Marty Dross at that time? A. And, then he turned to Marty Dross and said, "Well don't you work at that dryer over there. To get over there." And, Marty turned and went over to the dryer, and Mr Horton and Joe walked away at that time, and that's about all I would know be- cause there is big high racks there and they were behind the racks before I could see anything more. Q. How far-what's the distance between the machine where you were and the last time you saw Mr Horton and Mr. Sullivan? - A. Oh, I would say about three foot, four foot. Q. Could you describe the demeanor of Mr. Horton'during that period of time that you were_a witness to the two of them. A. Well, mostly all I heard was "Joe, come down to the office. I want to talk to you." And that's about all I could really hear, except when he turned around and said to Marty, "to get over to the dryer. That's where you job is." Q. And, what was the level of his [Horton's] voice? A I wouldn't say it was rather hard. Q. What was the level of Mr. Sullivan's voice? A. I don't think Joe said anything right at that time. . - Q. Did. you hear Joe say-Did Mr. Sullivan say anything? A. No, I didn t hear. Joe say anything. Horton, in effect, testified that immediately upon con; fronting Sullivan, Sullivan flew into a boisterous; rage. Alton's testimony in this very material respect,contra- dicts Horton'! Twice Alton testified that Sullivam'said nothing. I believe Alton and'therefore discredit Horton. Alton is still an employee who was called as a witness by the Respondent. He has no apparent stake in the' out- come of this matter. There is no reason to believe-he would make up a story adverse to his employer. In addi- tion, I found Horton's demeanor unpersuasive. , No doubt at some point after Horton reprimanded Sul- livan, Sullivan reacted and they exchanged words. I 'do 1239 ,not credit Horton's 'self-serving assertion that' he at all times was in "complete control" and calm whereas Sulli- van was loud, boisterous, and insubordinate. I believe Horton's version of this event is exaggerated: Neverthe- less, I believe Sullivan may have subsequently acted in a less than submissive manner. But the confrontation was initiated by Horton's unlawful determination to discipline Sullivan because of his known activity on behalf of the Union. Thus, Horton's subsequent decision to discharge Sullivan arose out of this unlawful act and was violative of Section 8(a)(3) notwithstanding that Sullivan may have demonstrated displeasure when he was told that he would have to punch out and leave the plant. Tu. nbull Cone Baking Co., 271 NLRB 1320, 1339 (1984), and cases cited therein: It might be noted that on being shown the door, Horton undeniably told Sullivan, "Ha, ha, I , got you Sully. You did me a big favor." Such a statement clearly indicates that Horton had been waiting for some excuse to, discharge Sullivan and is consistent with my conclu- sion that the entire confrontation was initiated by Horton to discipline a known union activist upon the pretext, of his having talked to'other employees. Therefore, the Respondent's contention that it met its burden of proving that. Sullivan would have been dis- charged notwithstanding his-,union activity is without merit. Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980).. Finally, that Sullivan may have made some opprobrious remark -to Horton upon leaving the plant, under these circum- stances, does vindicate Horton's unlawful conduct. I conclude, that when Horton discharged Sullivan on May 18, 1984, the -Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act and I shall recommend an appropriate remedy. Following the May '18 incident, on four occasions, Sul- livan met with management,. representatives. and . the "problem, solving committee" during which.Horton's de- cision was affirmed The -fact of such meetings in -no way exonerates:the Respondent's unlawful act and:is at best a self-serving gesture.- It is clear that these meetings were never meant to constitute a forum-in which,:Sullivan could reasonably have expected to be retained in his job. For instance, Sullivan • was not even notified by, the Re- spondent of the scheduled -June 10:meeting. Sullivan ap- peared only because a fellow employee, advised him, that his case would be considered on that day; As noted above, the Respondent submitted evidence of prior events involving! Sullivan,. arguably -for,the-purpose of negating- his, credibility: While -these matters ,do 'not impugn Sullivan's credibility;' I have-not •ih any ` material respect relied on such testimony- of Sullivan. which. was denied and -not corroborated by an independent witness. Nevertheless, a comments concerning these' instances of Sullivan's alleged 'aggressive Behavior is in order because they may arguably relate to the remedy of reinstatement. Horton testified that-on March -31,' 1983; Sullivan had interrupted a meeting that Horton and other management representatives were having with employees, stating that the machines were running without being attended to. Hoiton approached Sullivan' after'this'and'said 'fie- was correct, that it was a bad situation, but went-on to"'say 1240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD never to interrupt a meeting of his again . Horton testi- fied, "As we were talking, Mr. Sullivan reaches over and picks up a rod, a little steel rod, which is used, I believe, to turn valves on and off, and he is holding it in front of him." The Respondent argues that this was a threatening act. Aside from the fact that there is no basis to suggest why Sullivan would pick up a steel, rod and ,threaten Horton, I believe Sullivan's version of this event. The rod in question was used to open and,close valves and was attached to the machine and could not easily be picked up by him with his right hand in any event The incident concerning Sullivan interrupting the meeting to tell management that 'the machines were being left unat- tended no doubt occurred. The testimony of Horton to the effect that Sullivan threatened him with a steel rod is an exaggeration. The other incident involves Former Supervisor George Hosler, who resigned on Febriiary 4, 1983, be- cause, according to his resignation letter, he could no longer take the pressure of being, a' supervisor. In his letter he mentioned an event which had occurred in Jan- uary involving Sullivan wherein Sullivan was out of his work area sharpening his knife and Hosler told him to return to his job, although Hosler was not Sullivan's su- pervisor. Hosler testified that Sullivan became upset and "pointed his knife" at him. On cross-examination it was learned that the knife in question was one issued to all the employees involved in cutting fabric and is curved. Though Hosler mentioned this in his' resignation letter', the Respondent' did not confront Sullivan about the matter, which suggests-that the Respondent-did not take Hosler's statement seriously. Immediately following Hosler's telling Sullivan to return to his work area, Sulli- van talked to his supervisor Frank Broadhead. Broad- head told Sullivan he understood what had gone on. Broadhead did not deny Sullivan's testimony. In short, I conclude that the -evidence concerning these two alleged incidents of violent aggressiveness show them to be too insignificant to affect the remedy in this matter. Further, inasmuch as the incidents occurred many months prior to Sullivan's discharge and admitted- ly had no bearing on his discharge, they are immaterial. 111. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES "UPON COMMERCE The unfair labor practice found above , occurring in connection with the Respondent 's business, has a' close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among - the several States and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent unlawfully dis- charged Joseph Sullivan on May 18, 1984, I shall recom- mend that it cease and desist from engaging in such ac- tivity, and offer Sullivan full and immediate reinstate- ment to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position of employment, and make him whole for - any, loss of wages or other rights and benefits he may have suffered as the result of the dis- crimination against him in accordance with the formula -set forth in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as provided for in Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 65,1 (1977) 6 The Respondent will also be ordered to expunge from its records any reference to the unlaw- ful discharge of Joseph Sullivan and notify him in writ- ing that this has been done and that evidence of his un- lawful discharge will not be used against him in any way. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed7 ORDER The Respondent, Pottsville Bleaching and, Dyeing Company, Port Carbon, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against employees because they engage in any activity on behalf of Teamsters Local Union No. 115, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America or • any other labor 'organization. (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar- anteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Offer immediate reinstatement to Joseph Sullivan to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a sub- stantially equivalent position of employment, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights. and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay or any other benefits he may have suffered, as a result of the discrimi- nation against him in accordance with the provisions of the remedy section above. (b) Remove from its files any reference to the unlawful discharge of Joseph Sullivan and notify him in writing that this has been done and that the discharge will not be used against him in any way . - (c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay- roll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records nec- essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this.Order. (d) Post at its Port Carbon, Pennsylvania facility copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."8 6 See generally Isis Plumbing Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962) 7 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 8 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 " POTTSVILLE BLEACHING CO Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 4, after being signed by the Re- spondent's authorized representative, 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 Respond- ent to ensure that the notices are- not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply. 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 or- dered us io post and abide by this notice. 1241 WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against our employees because they engage in any activi- ty on behalf of Teamsters Local Union No. 115, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, re- strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act WE WILL offer Joseph Sullivan immediate reinstate- ment to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position of employment, and WE WILL make him whole for any loss wages or rights and benefits he might have suffered as a result of our dis- crimination against him , with interest. WE WILL remove from our files any reference to our unlawful discharge of Joseph Sullivan and WE WILL notify him in writing that this has been done and that evidence of his unlawful discharge will not be used against him in any way. POTTSVILLE • BLEACHING AND DYEING COMPANY