Fourjay Industries Inc.

276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Fourjay Industries Inc. and Tara S. Gardner. Case - 9-CA-21633 29 January 1986 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS DENNIS AND JOHANSEN On 26 June 1985 Administrative Law Judge Wil- liam F. Jacobs issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting 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 brief and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order 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,, Fourjay Industries Inc., Dayton, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified. 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(b). "(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. Substitute the attached notice for that of the administrative law judge. ' The judge recommended that a broad cease-and-desist order issue against the Respondent . However, we have considered this case in light of the standards set forth in H,ckmott Foods, 242 NLRB 1357 (1979), and have concluded that a narrow cease-and-desist order is appropriate. We shall modify the judge's recommended Order accordingly 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 discharge or otherwise deny em- ployment to employees because they concertedly complain about their working conditions or engage in protected concerted activity. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer- cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL offer Tara Gardner and Marilyn McKinney immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without preju- dice to their seniority or any other rights or privi- leges previously enjoyed, and WE WILL make them whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting- from their discharge, less any net interim earnings, plus interest.' WE WILL expunge from our files any references to the discharges of Tara Gardner and Marilyn McKinney on 27 December 1984 and we will notify them that this has been done and that the evidence of these unlawful discharges will not be used as a basis for future personnel actions against them. FOURJAY INDUSTRIES INC. Mark G. Mehas-and Jack B. Baker, Esqs., for the General Counsel. Alex V DeMarco, Esq., of Vandalia, Ohio, for the Re- spondent. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE WILLIAM F. JACOBS, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried before me on 23 April 1985 at Dayton, Ohio. The charge was filed 11 January 1985 by Tara S. Gardner, an individual (Gardner), on behalf of herself and Marilyn J. McKinney, also an individual (McKin- ney). The complaint issued 25 February 1985 and was amended on 13 March 1985. As amended, the complaint alleges that Fourjay Industries- (Respondent) terminated Gardner and McKinney because they engaged in pro- tected concerted activity in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Fourjay, in its timely filed answer, denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. The parties were represented at the hearing and af- forded full opportunity to be heard and to present evi- dence and argument. Briefs were filed by both the Gen- eral Counsel and Respondent. On the entire record in the case, my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after giving full consider- ation of the briefs, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent, an Ohio corporation with offices and a place of business in Dayton, Ohio, has been engaged in the manufacture and nonretail sale and distribution of audio speakers and related products. During the past 12 months, a representative period, Respondent, in the 278 NLRB No. 43 FOURJAY INDUSTRIES 277 course and conduct of its business operations , purchased and received at its Dayton, Ohio facility products, goods, and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Ohio. The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The two discharges, Marilyn McKinney and Tara Gardner, were hired by Respondent in September 1979 and April 1980, respectively, both as mold operators. In September 1983 Gardner quit her job but after 2 months her supervisor David "Ron" Bicknell called her up and asked her to return for a couple of weeks because the Company needed help. Gardner accepted the offer but then stayed on the job until her discharge in December 1984.1 On 29 March Gardner received her biannual employee performance review. Her attendance was evaluated as acceptable and her personal habits as good . The quality of her work, knowledge of her job, productivity, and at- titude were all graded outstanding. Her total point score, 71, placed her in the overall category of outstanding. Under "SUPERVISOR'S COMMENTS" Bicknell noted, "Tara has had health problems causing attendance problem. She is a very good worker." Bicknell recommended Gardner for continued employment and for a wage in- crease which she was awarded 5 April. McKinney also received her biannual employee per- formance review on 29 March . Like Gardner, McKin- ney's attendance was graded acceptable while her per- sonal habits were graded good . The quality of McKin- ney's work and her knowledge of her job were evaluated as very good while her productivity and attitude were graded outstanding . Her total points were 70, which placed her as an all round employee in the outstanding category. Under "SUPERVISOR'S COMMENTS" Bicknell noted: "Marilyn's attendance held her score down some. She is a good operator., She needs to have confidence in herself. Sometimes her concentration is not real good! But overall she does a good job." Bicknell recommended McKinney , like Gardner, for continued employment and a wage increase which she subsequently obtained, effective 5 April. Her next review was scheduled for 1 October. McKinney's employment performance review was dis- cussed with her on 6 April. During the discussion Bick- nell told her that she was doing great work except for her attendance and told her that he wished that he had two more like Gardner and her. Apparently noting Bick- nell's comments about her lack of confidence, McKinney complained to Bicknell that he was checking her work too much, always looking over her shoulder, taking parts out of the press and that this was making her feel inad- equate, as though she had been doing something wrong. Bicknell replied that her work was great, that he checked everyone's work, that she did not have self-con- fidence, and that she should because she was a good worker. On 1 October McKinney received the employee per- formance review scheduled earlier. This time both her attendance and personal habits were graded "good," the highest grade on the form for these categories. She was evaluated outstanding for the quality of her work, knowledge of her job, productivity, and attitude. McKin- ney's points numbered 73 on the October review which placed her, once again, as an employee, in the outstand- ing category. Under "SUPERVISOR'S' COMMENTS," Bick- nell entered, "Marilyn does a good job for me. Keep up the good work." Once again under "SUPERVISOR'S REC- OMMENDATION" Bicknell checked the blocks labeled, "CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT" and "CONSIDERATION FOR PAY RAISE." The raise was 'subsequently approved and became'effective 4 October. Bicknell discussed McKinney's performance review with her on 5 October. Again he told her that she was doing good work. By this day, according to Bicknell, McKinney had gained confidence and, according to McKinney, she did not have, much to say because Bick- nell had let up with the close checking of her work. McKinney testified that she felt that she and Bicknell had come to an agreement on the subject. Gardner also received her scheduled performance review on 1 October. Her attendance was.evaluated as acceptable and her personal habits as good. The quality of her work, knowledge of her job, productivity, and at- tendance were all graded outstanding. Her total point score, 69, was at the very top of the "Very Good" cate- gory. Under "supervisor's comments" Bicknell -noted, "Tara is good at her job. My only criticism is her attend- ance. She has, had a period of illness." Under "SUPERVI- SOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS" Bicknell checked the boxes marked "CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT" and "CONSIDER- ATION FOR A PAY INCREASE." Gardner accepted her ap- praisal without comment. Subsequently her raise was ap- proved effective 4 October. Bicknell testified that Gard- ner was normally pretty accurate and fairly quick but had an attendance problem for a good many years, thus supporting his written appraisal of her. Bicknell testified that following their October employ- ee performance review Gardner and McKinney began to take advantage, of him by stretching and even breaking the rules governing employees by frequently leaving their work areas without authorization or reason. He ex- plained that employees were to make all phone calls or restroom visits during their 10-minute breaks, one in the morning and one in the afternoon or during lunchbreak but that Gardner in particular took far too many breaks. Bicknell testified further that beginning about 1 Decem- ber he noticed a ,change in the attitudes of Gardner and McKinney toward their work. He admitted that they had been good employees up to this point and though their attitudes had suddenly changed, he never bothered to ask either one why their attitudes had changed. Gardner testified with regard to this period of employ- ment that employees were in the habit of using the phones, left their work stations to do so, and that no one 1 Hereafter all dates are in 1984 unless otherwise indicated. was ever criticized, for this. ,Gardner testified with partic- 278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ularity that Bicknell never once warned her about using the phone. Nor is there record evidence that either McKinney or Gardner was ever warned or criticized for making phone calls, visiting the restroom, or leaving their work station prior to the day of their discharge.2 In early November, according to Gardner, while she was working in the assembly room, Bicknell approached her and said, "I know I've been going through your work quite a bit, but its not you. I've just got a lot of things on my mind." Gardner agreed that Bicknell had, indeed, been going through her work quite a bit. On sev- eral occasions, including early November, Bicknell came up to Gardner, patted her on the back, and said, "Good job, kid," or "You're one of the best workers I've got." During November Respondent was producing, among other products, the SS8-WX, a plastic grill and speaker which fits into the ceiling. Production employees includ- ing Gardner were responsible for assembling these SS8- WXs by placing four paper blocks between the grill and speaker and having the grill, through chemical reaction, glued to the speaker by means of these papers. The em- ployees had to assemble, check, and pack the assembled speakers, and place their initials or numbers on the boxes after inspection. There were frequent problems with get- ting the grills to stay stuck to the speakers and when such problems arose Gardner would simply use a new paper to restick the grill to the speaker. All of "the pro- duction workers including Gardner had trouble with the SS8-WX product because the gluing papers came off oc- casionally for all of the employees. This was the appar- ent reason that Bicknell checked all of the work so close- ly, i.e., because the SS8's were such a problem. Howev- er, despite the many problems with production and the very close inspection of the assembler's work, Gardner credibly testified that none of her work on the SS8-WX speakers was faulty and denied that Bicknell ever talked to her about her work or ever criticized her for the qual- ity of her work, regardless of how closely he checked it. According to McKinney, Bicknell's checking out of the SS8-WX speakers on the production line, in November, became fanatic as he constantly watched her over her shoulder as she worked on the pieces. This constant checking of her work by Bicknell irritated McKinney just as it had earlier in -the year before Bicknell ceased his close surveillance of her. In mid-December Bicknell called Gardner into his office. He told her that he did not want to make her mad but that he had to talk to her about her attendance. He said that other employees felt that he was showing her favoritism by permitting her to be absent so often. - He complained that Gardner was missing too many days and he needed her at work. He said that he recognized that Gardner had had a lot of problems" but asked her, to'try to improve her attendance. Though Gardner had missed a number of days prior to this discussion with Bicknell, she had always advised him in advance of the necessity 2 On the day of her discharge Bicknell accused Gardner of leaving her work station four tunes that morning. Gardner stated that she had done so ,three times for valid reasons and explained that this was due, in part, because she had started work 2 hours earlier than usual that morning. a Gardner, had, in fact, suffered several major illnesses as had other members of her family, thus accounting for her numerous absences. of her forthcoming absence and following this conversa- tion she was never absent again. According to Gardner's testimony, Bicknell's inspec- tion of her work became even more intense in mid-De- cember than it had been earlier. Bicknell testified that he paid no more attention to supervising Gardner and McKinney than he did to other employees. In any case, both Gardner and McKinney were extremely annoyed with Bicknell's approach toward supervision, in particu- lar his tendancy, in -their view, to minutely check out or to closely inspect their work and their production. Con- sequently, just before Christmas, on Friday, December 21, when Bicknell distributed boxes of chocolates to all of the employees in his department, as was his practice each holiday season, Gardner decided not to accept the gift. Rather, she wrote the following note: Ron: Thank you very much for the candy but I don't feel like I really deserve it considering how my work has been. Thank you anyway. Merry Christmas /s/ Tara The note was clearly meant to be not only a sarcastic re- jection of Bicknell's gift but a means of bringing to his attention Gardner's dissatisfaction with "this way he had been treating her, going through her work and checking it so closely" and "making her feel inadequate about her job." After writing and, signing the note she showed it to McKinney and explained her intentions. After reading the note McKinney stated that she"agreed with its con- tent, then signed her name to it just below Gardner's. McKinney testified that she did not accept the ''choco- lates and signed the note for the same reasons that Gard- ner had, namely the way Bicknell had been so closely checking her work. After both employees had signed their names to the note, Gardner took the two boxes of chocolates and together with the note placed them on Bicknell's desk. Then she and McKinney left for the day and for the Christmas holidays. Bicknell was not present at the time Gardner placed the note and chocolates on his desk. Later, after Gardner and McKinney had left for the day, Bicknell discovered the chocolates and the note on his desk. He testified that he did not understand, that the gifts were personal and not work related, and that by re- fusing his gifts Gardner and McKinney had hurt his feel- ings and upset his holidays. On the first workday after the holidays, 26 December, while McKinney was at her-work station in the mold de- partment, Bicknell approached her and asked her why she had not accepted the chocolates. McKinney replied that they should discuss the matter in his office rather than there in the working area. Bicknell started' to walk away then turned and said, "I want you to know you've really hurt my feelings." McKinney described Bicknell as looking angry. On 27 December Bicknell called Gardner and McKin- ney into his office. He asked - them . what the problem FOURJAY INDUSTRIES 279 was, Gardner replied that she did not like the way Bick- nell was going through her work and checking it so closely and felt also that she had been singled out by him to be criticized for her attendance. She explained that other employees including McKinney had as many ab- sences as she had. Bicknell then asked McKinney what her problem was. McKinney replied, "Basically, my problem is the same as Tara's the way you've been checking our work." Thereafter both the subjects of close supervision and of attendance were discussed. With regard to the former, the SS8-WX job came up. McKinney had been working on this product at the time and Bicknell had always been intense about inspecting the SS8-WX line. She com- plained that Bicknell checked her work more closely than he checked the work of other employees and that it was as though he were trying to find something wrong with her work. Gardner voiced a similar grievance. Bicknell explained that there had been problems with the product and that close inspection was necessary; that the Company was behind schedule and was working over- time; that it needed good parts quickly; and that Bicknell was checking all work to make sure the Company was sending good parts out . Despite this explanation both Gardner and McKinney rejected what he had to say on the matter. They continued to make accusations concern- ing his checking up on them as though he were looking for something with' which to find fault. Bicknell testified that he did not like these accusations; that it put him on the defensive and as boss he did not feel as though he should be put on the defensive. With regard to the attendance issue Gardner accused Bicknell of singling her out for a warning when there were other employees with attendance records as bad as, or worse than, hers. When she specifically mentioned McKinney, Bicknell took out McKinney's card and read it off, noting that she had five excused and two unex- cused absences. Gardner then named two other employ- ees and accused Bicknell of being only critical of her at- tendance and not that of the other employees. Bicknell stated that her accusation was untrue. He agreed that the two-named employees did, in fact, have attendance prob- lems but that he had taken care of those problems. Gard- ner, however, rejected Bicknell's statement, became emo- tional, started to cry, and was accusatory, thus putting Bicknell once again on the defensive which, he testified, he did not deserve. Finally, amidst the turmoil, Bicknell stated that he did not think this was going to work out and that he was going to let Gardner go right then. As Gardner started toward the door, Bicknell turned to McKinney and said, "You can go with her!" McKinney asked, "Am I fired?" and Bicknell replied, "Yes!" Following the termination of Gardner and McKinney, on 27 December, Bicknell wrote two memoranda con- cerning the discharges: December 27, 1984 After talking to Tara Gardner this morning at 10:12 a.m. in my office, I decided to terminate her from her job in the molding department. She has had a very negative attitude towards me in particu- lar, and her work in general . She has also had a se- rious absentee record for which she was warned. She has missed 25 1/2 days this past year plus she has been tardy 12 times. Recently her work has been questionable, apparently due to her negative attitude. She leaves her work station and uses the phone without permission among other things. In my opinion her presence was disruptive of the busi- ness of our department. /s/ David R. Bicknell December 27, 1984 Marilyn McKinney was, dismissed at 10:10 this morning when in my opinion her negative attitude was disrupting the operation of our department. She and a co-worker have been disrespectful to me in particular, and their co-worker in general, by their negative actions. Marilyn has shown a lack of inter- est in that she is frequently absent (19 times this year and tardy 5 times). She resented her work being checked and stated so. Her work while ade- quate most of the time was suspicious at others. I feel her friendship with a co-worker who was also dismissed led to this unresolvable situation . I defi- nitely feel that this move was a wise and just deci- sion on my part after giving it much thought. /s/ David R. Bicknell These memoranda were sent to the Ohio Bureau of Em- ployment Services, apparently on the day of the dis- charge. About 1 January 1985 Gardner and McKinney visited the offices of the Ohio Bureau of Employment Services to file for unemployment benefits. While there, they were informed that the bureau had received letters from Respondent indicating reasons for their discharges. The following day they were given permission to copy these letters which turned out to be the above memoranda written by Bicknell concerning their discharges. With regard to the content of these memoranda Gardner testi- fied that Bicknell had never complained to her about at- titude and the first she had heard about Bicknell's dissat- isfaction with her attitude was when she read the memo- randum at the bureau office. Conclusion There appears to be no argument that Gardner and McKinney were indeed terminated on 27 December but there appears to be some question as to the reason for their termination. Respondent's brief points out that Bicknell was concerned about the attitude of Gardner and McKinney. Gardner testified that she had never heard anything, about her attitude until she read about it in Bicknell's memorandum of 27 December, written after discharge. There is no inconsistency here. I find that Bicknell was not concerned with Gardner's attitude until she and McKinney manifested displeasure with Bicknell by concertedly rejecting his Christmas gift with a note indicating unhappiness with the way he chose to closely supervise their work and then later concertedly made their determined stand to argue their position at, what 280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD turned out to be, their exit interview. Indeed, both Gard- ner's and McKinney's attitudes were evaluated as out- standing both in March and October. I find, therefore, that Bicknell's criticism of Gardner's attitude was, in effect, a dissatisfaction with her insistence upon making her and her coworkers' grievances known, both through the rejection note and through the 27 December argu- mentative discussion about the employees' grievances. Indeed, he as much as said so in his memorandum of 27 December.4 Respondent's brief notes that the record reflects that Bicknell was concerned about Gardner's and McKin- ney's attentiveness, or lack thereof, to their assigned tasks. Yet, on the day they were fired, the discussion that took place had nothing to do with the attentiveness of the terminated employees, but rather with the overatten- tiveness of Bicknell and his tendancy to so closely super- vise their work. Nor is there any indication in the record that Bicknell, before 27 December, ever criticized either Gardner or McKinney for failure to be attentive to their assigned tasks. Finally, inattentiveness was never men- tioned as such in Bicknell's memoranda of 27 December. I find that inattentiveness was not a true consideration behind Respondent's decision to terminate Gardner and McKinney. Respondent's brief also states that Bicknell was con- cerned with Gardner's and McKinney's poor attendance record. This is true. In Gardner's March Employee Per- formance Review, Bicknell commented, "Tara has health problems causing attendance problems," then recom- mended her for a pay increase, which she received. In Gardner's October Employee Performance Review, Bicknell commented, "Tara is good at her job. My only criticism of her is her attendance. She has had a period of illness," then recommended her for another pay in- crease, which she received. In mid-December Bicknell spoke with Gardner once again about her attendance but took no action against her. Thereafter, Gardner had per- fect attendance right up to the day of her discharge. In my opinion, if Bicknell was concerned enough to take action against Gardner because of her attendance record, he would have done so at the time he discussed the sub- ject,with her or earlier, at the time of her performance reviews, not weeks later, after she had apparently re- formed. I find that Gardner and McKinney were quite obvi- ously dissatisfied with Bicknell's very close supervision of their work. They voiced their dissatisfaction by con- certedly refusing the gifts of candy which Bicknell gave them and by signing the note which pointedly, if some- what sarcastically, announced their displeasure with his close supervision. When Bicknell took umbrage at their action and called them into the office to discuss the matter, Gardner and McKinney maintained their position both with regard to the close supervision issue and the 4 G C Exh. 4 "Marilyn McKinney was dismissed at 10 10 this morn- ing when in my opinion her negative attitude was disrupting the oper- ation of our department . , She resented her work being checked and stated so I feel her friendship with a co-worker who was also dis- missed led to this unreasonable situation " Thus, Bicknell not only object- ed to the subject matter of their grievance but to the concerted nature of their pursuing its solution matter of Bicknell's alleged singling out of Gardner for criticism of her attendance record . The more the two employees argued their position the angrier Bicknell became, primarily because, as he testified,- he was put on the defensive and as boss he did not feel as though he should be put on the defensive. I find that Bicknell ter- minated Gardner and McKinney because they concerted- ly complained about their' working conditions, that this concerted activity was protected under the Act and that by discharging the two employees for the reasons stated, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.5 All other reasons proffered by Respondent for their termina- tions were pretextual. III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section II, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes, burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. IV. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative actions de- signed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent unlawfully terminated Tara Gardner and Marilyn McKinney, I shall recom- mend that Respondent offer them immediate reinstate- ment to their former positions or, if such jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without loss of seniority or other rights and privileges, discharging, if necessary, any replacement, and make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of their unlawful terminations, by payment to them of sums of money equal to the amounts that they normally would have earned from the date of their termination to the date of which a bona fide offer of reinstatement is made, with interest thereon to be computed in the manner pre- scribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977).6 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is, and at all times material has been, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by terminating Tara Gardner and Marilyn McKinney be- cause they concertedly complained to Respondent re- garding their working conditions, in order to discourage employees from engaging in protected concerted activi- ties, thus interfering with, restraining, and coercing em- ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Sec- tion 7 of the Act. s Chrysler Credit Corp, 241 NLRB 1079 (1979) s See generally Psis Plumbing Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962). FOURJAY INDUSTRIES 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed7 ORDER The Respondent, Fourjay Inudustries Inc., Dayton, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Discharging or otherwise denying employment to employees because they concertedly complain about their working conditions or engage in protected concert- ed activities. (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 Tara Gardner and Marilyn McKinney imme- diate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent po- sitions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered 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 281 as a result of the discrimination against them, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision. {b) 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. (c) Remove from its files any reference to the unlawful discharges of Tara Gardner and Marilyn McKinney and notify the employees in writing that this has been done and that the discharges will not be used against them in any way. (d) Post at its Dayton, Ohio facility copies of the at- tached notice marked "Appendix."8 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region nine, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent imme- diately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where no- 'tices 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 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. 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 Nation- al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "