Wayne Auto Electric Manufacturing Co.

568 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Alfred and Madge Segura, a Partnership d/b/a Wayne Auto Electric Manufacturing Company and James T. Sikorski. Case 7-CA-26772 April 21, 1988 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS BABSON AND CRACRAFT On January 13, 1988, Administrative Law Judge Lowell Goerlich issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief and motions to deny reopening the record and to strike a portion of the Respondent'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 1 and briefs2 and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,3 and conclusions4 and to adopt the recommended Order as modified.3 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Re- spondent, Alfred and Madge Segura, a Partnership The Respondent filed a Notice of the Death of a Party and Request for Stay on Proceedings with the Division of Judges on January 19, 1988. Because the Respondent's request was not received by the tune the judge's decision issued on January 13, 1988, the judge did not have an opportunity to rule on the motion. The Respondent did not renew its re- quest before the Board. Therefore, it appears that the Respondent has abandoned its motion. In any event, we find that the motion is without merit. 2 In its answering brief, the General Counsel requests that the Re- spondent's motion to reopen the record to introduce new evidence should be denied and that the evidence that the Respondent submitted with its exceptions, including an attached Exh. A, should be stricken. The Respondent seeks to introduce a timecard for Craig Weber, which it claims could not be found at the time of the hearing The Respondent maintains that this additional evidence would refute the judge's finding that Michael Regits was hired to replace the Charging Party after he was terminated, because Regits was hired to replace Weber. Because the Re- spondent has failed to show that this evidence is newly discovered, or that it was previously unavailable, we deny the Respondent's motion to reopen the record and grant the General Counsel's request to strike this evidence. 3 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibihty 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 4 The Respondent excepts to the judge's decision to exclude any evi- dence of the Charging Party's work history after his employment with the Respondent. We agree with the Judge's decision to exclude this evi- dence because the determination of Interim earnings is properly left to the compliance stage of the proceeding. 5 The General Counsel and the Respondent agree that the Charging Party died on December 15, 1987. We have made the appropnate modifi- cations in the Order. d/b/a Wayne Auto Electric Manufacturing Com- pany, Garden City, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified. 1. Substitute the following for paragraphs 2(a) and (b). "(a) Make whole the estate of James Thomas Si- korski for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered from the date of his discharge until the date of his death as a result of the discrimination against him, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision. "(b) Remove from its files any reference to the unlawful discharge and notify the estate of James Thomas Sikorski that this has been done and that the discharge will not be used against the estate in any way." 2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the administrative law judge. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government 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 discrimi- nate against any of our employees because they have filed charges or given testimony under the National Labor Relations Act. 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 make the estate of James Thomas Si- korski, who we unlawfully discharged on Novem- ber 14, 1986, whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from his discharge, less any net interim earnings, plus interest. WE WILL notify the estate of James Thomas Si- korski that we have removed from our files any reference to the unlawful discharge and that the discharge will not be used against the estate in any way. ALFRED AND MADGE SEGURA, A PARTNERSHIP D/B/A WAYNE AUTO ELECTRIC MANUFACTURING COMPA- NY Richard M. Whiteman, Esq. and Michael R. Blum, Esq., for the General Counsel. 288 NLRB No. 65 WAYNE AUTO ELECTRIC MFG. CO . 569 John J. Nora, Esq., of Plymouth, Michigan, for the Re- spondent. James T Sikorski, of Detroit, Michigan, in propria perso- na. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE LOWELL GOERLICH, Administrative Law Judge. The original charge, filed on 19 March 1987 by James T. Si- korski, was served on Alfred and Madge Segura, a Part- nership d/b/a Wayne Auto Electric Manufacturing Company (the Respondent), by certified mail about 19 March 1987. The first amended charge was filed on 4 May 1987 and was served on the Respondent about 4 May 1987 by certified mail. In the complaint it was alleged that the Respondent discharged Sikorski on 14 November 1986 because he had filed unfair labor practice charges under the Act against Kirk's Automotive Incorporated and subsequent- ly proffered affidavit testimony in respect to the charges, thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) and (4) of the National Labor Relations Act. The Respondent filed a timely answer denying that it had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged. This matter came on for hearing on 2 November 1987 at Detroit, Michigan. Each party was afforded a full op- portunity to be heard, to call, to examine and cross-ex- amine witnesses, to argue orally on the record, to submit proposed findings of facts and conclusions, and to file briefs. All briefs have been carefully considered. On the entire record in the case and from my observa- tion of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the fol- lowing FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, AND REASONS THEREFOR I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Alfred and Madge Segura are, and have been at all times material, copartners doing business under the trade name and style of Wayne Auto Electric Manufacturing Company. At all times material, the Respondent has maintained its office and place of business at 32841 Park Lane, Garden City, Michigan (Garden City facility). The Re- spondent is, and has been at all times material, engaged in the rebuilding, nonretail sale, and distribution of re- built starters, alternators, and related products. The Re- spondent's Garden City facility is the only facility in- volved in this proceeding. During the year ending 31 December 1986, which period is representative of its operations during all times material, the Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, caused to be manufactured, sold, and distributed at its Garden City facility products valued in excess of $150,000, of which products valued in excess of $50,000 were furnished to Dealers Automo- tive Supply, Inc., which enterprise is engaged in the non- retail distribution of auto parts and which enterprise an- nually purchases from points located outside the State of Michigan and causes to be shipped directly to its Michi- gan facility goods arid materials valued in excess of $50,000. The Respondent is now, and has been at all times ma- terial, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES First. The Respondent was in the business of rebuild- ing starters and alternators. This process involved tearing down the part completely, cleaning, adding necessary components, and assembling it again. James Thomas Sikorsld was hired on 22 October 1986 to perform the tasks related to this process. His last em- ployer had been Kirk's Automotive, Inc. Sikorski was hired by Alfred Segura who described himself as "part-owner" of the Respondent. The "other owner" was his wife, Madge Segura. At the initial hiring interview, according to Sikorski, he told Segura that he had a "year's experience working at Kirk's Automotive and that [he] went to Matech Automotive, also, and [he] learned to rebuild starters there," Sikorski furnished the names of Anthony Frank Peterson and Kelly Davis, em- ployees of Kirk's, as references. Segura told Sikorski at the end of the interview that he "would get back" to him. Peterson, who was Sikorski's shop supervisor at Kirk's, testified that he received a phone call from the Respondent, around 16 October 1987, in regard to Sikor- ski. Peterson told the Respondent "that basically he [Si- korski] was a pretty good worker . . . . he had a few personal problems, 1 but other than that, he was a good employee." 2 Segura phoned Sikorski on 21 October 1986 and told him to come to work the following morning. Sikorski appeared for work on 22 October 1986 and was put to work. He "disassembled starters, put brushes in field cas- ings, put bushings in plates, cleaned boxed-up rebuilt starters." His supervisor was Thomas E. Houdek. Shortly after Sikorski commenced work with the Re- spondent he reported to Jeffrey Kent Van Hattum, a lawyer who was handling a legal matter for him, that he had obtained another job at the Respondent. On 7 November 1986 Kirk's Automotive received a copy of an unfair labor practice charge from the Nation- al Labor Relations Board's Region 7, 3 which was filed against Kirk's Automotive by Sikorski in which it was alleged that Ken Kirkman, a vice president of Kirk's Automotive, appeared at union meetings. On 14 November 1986 when Sikorski appeared for work he was assigned by Houdek to disassemble starters. After about a half hour he was directed to "put brushes in field castings." This was "bench" work. To perform this job Sikorski "mostly sat" on stacked milk crates. While sitting at this job, Houdek approached and re- proached him by saying that Sikorski "was not here to make myself at home and that I need not to sit on the 1 Peterson said these "problems" referred to "health problems' 2 According to Segura, Peterson told him that Sikorski "was a fairly good worker, but that he had been absent some and, so, he had quit." "A complaint was later issued on 30 December 1986 570 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD milk crates." Houdek removed the milk crates. 4 Addi- tionally, Houdek "reached over and unplugged an elec- tric heater" which Sikorski was using. Houdek remarked that Sikorski was not there "to make [him]self at home and that [he] didn't need the electric heater."5 Around 9:30 a.m. the phone rang. Houdek answered; Sikorski heard him say, "Yea. He's still here, he won't leave." Shortly thereafter Segura appeared and walked in his office. Houdek followed him into his office. In a few minutes Houdek returned to his bench. Shortly thereafter Segura left his office. Houdek addressing Segura said, "Hey, we've got a lazy guy over here. We should do something about him." Segura responded, "Yes. I hear he's a troublemaker." Segura then asked Sikorsld to come into his office. In the office, according to Sikorski, Segura told Sikor- ski that "he had talked to some one else at Kirk's Auto- motive and that they had told him that Sikorski "filed charges against the Labor Board—against Kirk's Auto- motive and that he didn't want a troublemaker 8 working in his shop." In regard to Sikorski's paycheck, Segura advised Si- korski that the check would not be ready until 3:30 p.m. and that he could leave or wait for the check. Sikorski chose to leave. Before leaving, Sikorski asked for a writ- ten statement detailing the reasons for his discharge. Segura replied that the statement would be included in his check. Sikorski left and later returned to pick up his check around 3:30 p.m. which was given to him by Madge Segura. No statement of discharge was included. Madge Segura knew nothing of the statement. The fol- lowing week Sikorski phoned, inquiring about the state- ment; Segura "hung up" on him. Shortly thereafter, Sikorski called Attorney Van Hattum to report that his employment had been termi- nated at the Respondent's shop. Sikorski reported that "he'd been terminated from Wayne Auto Electric and that his superior had told him, him being Mr. Sikorsld, that the reason for the termination was that he found out from the prior employer, Kirk's Automotive, that he had filed some sort of claim and that he—the person from Wayne Auto Electric thought he was a troublemaker." Segura's version of the foregoing events differed sub- stantially from Sikorski's version. Segura testified that on the last day Sikorski worked, Houdek informed him that Sikorski "insisted on a better job and insisted on sitting down on the job and a culmi- nation of the other problems that he had had." Segura called Sikorski into the office where he discussed the complaints. One complaint was that after about a week's work Houdek reported Sikorski did not perform as "ex- 4 Houdek's version was as follows. I told him, "When you get done doing what you are doing, you don't sit down." He said, "Well, I make myself comfortable when I work." I told him, I said "You're not here to make yourself comfortable. You're here to produce." He said, "Well I don't have to listen to you" He said, "You're not my boss." Sikorsla was sitting on a "milk carton" according to Honda. 5 Houdek denied that he had unplugged the heater. 6 Neither Segura nor Houdek specifically denied that he had referred to Sikorslu as a "troublemaker." pected of him." Another complaint Houdek had in- formed him of was his "lack of cooperation and his lack of knowledge." Houdek also reported that Sikorski "wanted to sit down and Mr. Houdek tried to deny him his seating arrangement," and that "[h]e said he was cold and that was one reason why he had left at 8:00 one day previous." Sikorski brought the matter up about the heater. Summarizing the situation Segura agreed on cross-ex- amination: "So, your complaints, as expressed to Mr. Si- korski, then were that Mr. Houdek was dissatisfied with his work and his performance and he did not perform as he had expected him to and that it was a lack of coop- eration and a lack of knowledge?"7 After the discussion concluded, according to Segura, he and Sikorski walked into the shop. As related by Segura, "I told Mr. Sikorsi that if he didn't go back to work, then he had his choice of either getting back to work or going home. And that's the last words we had. He decided to go home." Segura testified that he would have allowed Sikorski to continue working.8 Segura furnished an affidavit dated 7 May 1987 to the Board in which it was deposed: I was told by Thomas Houdek, my foreman, that Mr. Sikorski was refusing to take orders on Novem- ber 14, 1987. I met with Mr. Sikorski in my office, listened to his complaints and told him he was to take orders from his Foreman. He complained about not being able to assemble; I told him he would have to tear down until he learned the job. No other topics were discussed. I walked Mr. Sikorski back to he job. . . . I told him in front of Mr. Houdek that he had a choice of doing his work and stop complaining or leave. Mr Sikorski left. . . . . I did not fire Mr. Sikorski; I gave him a choice. He chose to leave. I gave him a choice because he did not want to follow the instructions of his fore- man and was complaining about his job. 8 [R. Exh. 4.] 7 Houdek testified that he told Segura on 14 November 1987: I told him, Al, that I told Jun not to sit down on that job and what- ever I tell him to do m the shop he is supposed to do. And he said he didn't have to listen to me, that I was not his boss. And I told him, I said, "Either you listen to me or do as I want or get the hell out." That's when he said, "Axe you firing me?" And I said, "No I am not firing you. And that's what I told Al" 8 Houdek's version was as follows. I heard Al, him and Jim were standing there, and Al told him that he was supposed to listen to me, even though he is there, that I knew more about it and that he should listen to me to what I tell him to do and, if he didn't like it, he should go home. But there was no indication saymg that "You're fired" or anything. He says if you just don't like [it}—then, go home. And he did. He took his stuff and went home and that's the last we seen of him Al told him to either listen to me and do as we want, do the job like we want it, or go home. He had his choice. And the choice he took is going home. 9 Sikorski denied that Segura had told him that Houdek was dissatis- fied with Ins work; that Houdek had said that Sikorski "had not per- Continued WAYNE AUTO ELECTRIC MFG. CO. 571 After Sikorski had communicated with Attorney Van Hattum, as above detailed, Van Hattum phoned Segura and inquired about Sikorski's termination from employ- ment. Segura did not indicate that Sikorski had quit nor that he had given Sikorski the option of working without complaining or quitting. According to Van Huttum, Segura stated that Sikorski was discharged because he "did not meet up to Mr. Segura's expectations as to work that he could perform." "In other words, Mr. Si- korski wasn't able to do the job that Mr. Segura thought he would when he hired him. . .',1 The Respondent offered a determination by the Michi- gan Employment Security Commission dated 19 Decem- ber 1987 which reads- "Employer states that claimant was dissatisfied with working conditions. When he was given the choice of going home, claimant left. Based on all available information it is deemed that claimant's leav- ing was voluntary without good cause attributable to the employer." (R. Exh 1) A redetermination of a redetermination was mailed 13 January 1987 as follows: Claimant states he left work when he was told he was fired because the employer was dissatisified with his work. It is redetermined that claimants [sic] separation was initiated by the employer. Miscon- duct in connection with claimants [sic] work has not been established. The determination is reversed. [R. Exh. 2.1 Sikorski testified under cross-examination by the Re- spondent that he did not tell the commission that the Re- spondent had "complaints about [his] work and [his] ab- senteeism" or that he "left work when he was told he was fired because the employer was dissatisfied with his work." Sikorski testified further that he told the claims examiner that he was discharged because he filed a claim against Kirk's. He also showed the examiner that he was "state qualified, that [he] had experience in rebuilding." According to Sikorski, when he related to the claims ex- aminer that he was "discharged because [he] filed an N.L.R.B. complaint against [his] previous employer." The claims examiner replied that "they did not want to get involved with the N.L.R.B. that that was a totally different matter." On 19 March 1987 Sikorski filed a hand-printed charge with the Board: formed as they expected"; or that Houdek was "concerned about [Sikor- ski's] lack of cooperation" or "knowledge of the job"; that Segura had told him "to quit complaining and go back to work or else leave work"; and that he had voluntarily quit work. Sikorski further testified that he obeyed Houdek except for the heater incident and that he had a "state license for rebuilding for electrical work on automotive—not only auto- motive, but, also, heavy duty electrical systems." '° On 5 January 1987 Van Huttum addressed a letter to the Michigan Employment Security Commission, a part of which read; I telephoned Mr. Al Segura at Wayne Auto Electric and spoke with him regarding Mr. Sikorski. This conversation took place within days of the end of Mr. Sikorsld's employment with Wayne Auto Electric At that time, Mr. Segura informed me that Mr. Sikor- sld had been terminated from employment at Wayne Auto Electric. Mr Segura indicated that he had terminated Sikorsld, and in no way did he indicate that Sikorski had quit his position at Wayne Auto Electric. [G C. Exh. 6.] I feel that my job was terminated because I had filed charges against Kirks [sic] Automotive. The employer, Al Segura's first statement to me was "Kirks [sic] said that I was a troublemaker" and then shortly thereafter said that I quit my job. [G.C. Exh 1(a).] When Sikorski was asked why he did not mention the NLRB charges in the foregoing statement, he replied, "I feel that I did write it that way." Although Madge Segura testified that it was a mistake, her accounting ledger revealed that Michael Regits com- menced work on 14 November 1987, the same day Si- korsld left employment. Sikorski testified that he saw an employee whose first name was "Mike" working for the first time on the day Sikorski left employment. Mike was "finishing up the starters that [Sikorsld] had dissembled," which was Sikorski's usual job. Prior to his termination, Sikorski had received no writ- ten or verbal reprimands or warnings nor had he been warned of a possible discharge. On the other hand Segura testified that Sikorski "could not recognize one part from another." Houdek testified that when he assigned him to "tear down, he was doing it the opposite way that normal pro- cedure is to tear it down." Houdek did not think Sikorski was a "qualified builder" and told Segura, "I don't think he is going to pan out." Robert E. Kirkman, president of Kirk's Automotive, was called as a witness by the Respondent. He testified that he received * a copy of Sikorsld's charge in the second week of November 1986 (certified receipt is dated 11/7/86). Kirkman admitted he had talked to Segura about the Sikorski charges but placed the time after November 1986. 12 Kirkman was asked, "Are you absolutely certain you did not contact him prior to De- cember, that being in November?" Kirkman answered, "I'd never talked to Mr. Segura until in November12—or I mean not November, until—until, 87." Second. The Respondent has succinctly stated the issue in these words: The major issue in this case is the credibility of the Charging Party and Respondent and this case boils down to which side is telling the truth. [R. Br. 2.] Resolving a matter of credibility demeanor is an im- portant consideration. As stated by the Board in Road- " Sikorski further testified, "I don't know how else I would have put it in there other than my feelings because Mr. Segura stated to me I had charges against Kirks. [sic]" On cross-examination late in the hearing Sikorski replied to a ques- tion relating to what Segura said to him, "He told me that Kirks [sic] had told him that I was a troublemaker and that he had heard from them that I had filed charges against Kirks [sic] with the N.L.R.13 and he didn't want a troublemaker worker for him." 12 Kirkman testified: We just indicated to him [Segura] that we had a hearing going on in the thing and we wanted to get some mformation because we'd heard, you know, that he as working out there. 13 I am of the opinion that Kirkman being somewhat caught off guard here told the truth. Demeanor has been considered I deem Kirkman's testimony to have been fabricated to help Segura and to accommodate Kirkman's displeasure with Sikorski. 572 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD way Express, Inc., 108 NLRB 874, 875 (1954): "[C]redibility findings may rest entirely upon evidence through observation which words do not, and could not, either preserve or describe." In respect to demeanor, the Supreme Court has said in NLRB v. Walton Mfg. Co., 369 U.S. 404, 408 (1962): "For the demeanor of a witness . . . may satisfy the tri- bunal, not only that the witness' testimony is not true, but that the truth is the opposite of his story; for the denial of one, who has a motive to deny, may be uttered with such hesitation, discomfort, arrogance, or defiance, as to give assurance that he is fabricating, and that, if he is, there is no alternative but to assume the truth of what he denies." I am satisfied that the material matters revealed in the record about which Sikorski testified, and Sikorski's de- meanor reflected that he was telling the truth, for which reason I shall find that he was discharged because the Respondent did not went a troublemaker who had filed unfair labor practice charges against an employer in his employ; thus the Respondent discharged him unlawfully in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (4) of the Act. The Respondent's claim that Sikorski did not choose to work or quit is not well taken. This finding is bolstered by the following facts: (a) Segura knew at the time of Sikorski's discharge that Sikorski had filed an unfair labor practice charge. (b) It would appear on the examination of the Re- spondent's ledger that the Respondent had anticipated Si- korski's discharge in that it had hired a replacement for him who commenced work on the very day Sikorski was discharged. (c) Houdek's remarks shortly before Sikorski was dis- charged (which are uncontradicted), i.e., "He's still here, he won't leave" inferred that Houdek's treatment of Si- korski (requiring Sikorski to stand while working and Houdek's unplugging the electric heater) was for the purpose of provoking his quitting. (d) From the following conversational exchange be- tween Segura and Houdek just before Sikorski was dis- charged (which was not specifically denied), it appears that the Respondent was setting Sikorski up for a dis- charge. Houdek stated: "[W]e've got a lazy guy over here. We should do something about him." Segura re- plied: "Yes, I hear he's a troublemaker." (e) The Respondent was reluctant to give Sikorsld a written statement for his discharge. (f) Shortly after Sikorski was discharged he informed Attorney Van Hattum that he had been discharged be- cause the Respondent had found out from his "prior em- ployer, Kirk's Automotive, that he had filed some sort of claim and that he—the person from Wayne Auto Elec- tric—thought he was a troublemaker." (g) Attorney Van Hattum credibly testified that Segura told him that Sikorski had been discharged be- cause he did not "meet up to Mr, Segura's expectations as to the work he could perform," refuting the Respond- ent's claim that Sikorski chose to quit." 14 It is of particular significance that Segura did not testify that he had not made the remarks attributed to him by Van Hattum. (h) Incongruously, the Respondent marked Sikorski as an employee who did not perform as expected, lacked "cooperation and knowledge," failed to follow his super- visors' orders, "could not recognize one part from an- other," and would never "pan out," yet the Respondent insisted that it would have continued Sikorski's employ- ment. (i) Enough variance was between Segura's affidavit and his testimony and that of Houdek to reflect Segura's credibility. I am convinced that Sikorski would not have been dis- charged if the Respondent had not discovered that he had filed unfair labor practice charges against his prior employer. Cf. Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980)-. The finding is for the General Counse1.15 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act for jurisdiction to be exercised here. 2. By unlawfully discharging James Thomas Sikorsld on 14 November 1986, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (4) of the Act. 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. REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer- tain unfair labor practices, I recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action nec- essary to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having also found that the Respondent unlawfully discharged James Thomas Sikorski on 14 November 1986 and has failed and refused to reinstate him in violation of Section 8(a)(4) and (1) of the Act, I recommend that the Re- spondent remedy such unlawful conduct. In accordance with Board policy, it is recommended that the Respond- ent offer Sikorski immediate and full reinstatement to his former position or, if that position no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or privileges previously en- joyed, dismissing, if necessary, any employees hired on or since the date of his discharge to fill the position, and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's acts here detailed, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount he would have earned from the date of his un- lawful discharge to the the date of a valid offer of rein- statement, less net interim earnings during such period, to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner estab- lished by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest to be computed in the manner prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded." 14 Because it appears that at this time it will serve no useful purpose to grant the General Counsel's request for a visitatorial order, it is denied. 16 283 NLRB 1173 (1987). Interest on and after 1 January 1987 shall be computed at the "short-term Federal rate" for the underpayment of Continued WA'YNE AUTO ELECTRIC MFG. CO . 573 On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed" ORDER The Respondent, Alfred and Madge Segura, a Partner- ship d/b/a Wayne Auto Electric Manufacturing Compa- ny, Garden City, Michigan, its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against an employee because he had filed charges or given testimo- ny under the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(4) of the Act. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Offer James Thomas Sikorski immediate and full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prej- udice to his seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of taxes as set out m the 1986 amendment to 26 U.S.C. § 6621. Interest on amounts accrued prior to 1 January 1987 (the effective date of the 1986 amendment to 26 U.S.C. § 6621) shall be computed in accordance with Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977). "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. earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the dis- crimination against him, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision. (b) Remove from its files any reference to the unlawful discharge and notify the employee 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 facility in Garden City, Michigan, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being signed by the Respondent's au- thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respond- ent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 con- secutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea- sonable 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. 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."