Scranton Lace Co.

SCRANTON LACE CO Scranton Lace Company and District Lodge 128, International ' Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. Cases 4-CA- 16194 and 4-CA-16359 May 25, 1989 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS JOHANSEN, CRACRAFT, AND HIGGINS On September 23, 1988, Administrative Law Judge Karl H. Buschmann issued the attached deci- sion. The Respondent filed exceptions and a sup- porting brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief in opposition. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions" and to adopt the recommended Order. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, Scranton Lace Company, Scranton, Pennsylvania, its offi- cers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order. ' In agreeing with the judge that the Respondent violated Sec 8(a)(3) and (1) by changing its past practice with respect to compensating em- ployees who served on jury duty, we note that employee Goonan was notified of this change in policy prior to the Union's victory in the repre- sentation election Nevertheless, in the circumstances, we find that the Respondent's denial of a jury duty pay differential to employee Goonan was in retalia- tion for the employees' support for the Union during the organizational campaign Timothy Brown and William Slack, Esqs., for the General Counsel. Sheldon Rosenberg, Esq. (Rosenberg & UJberg), of Scran- ton, Pennsylvania, for the Respondent. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE KARL H. BUSCHMANN, Administrative Law Judge This case arose on a charge filed on November 5, 1986, in Case 4-CA-16194 and a charge filed on February 2, 1987, in Case 4-CA-16395, as amended on April 4, 1987, by District Lodge 128, International Association of Ma- chinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO (the Union). Based on these charges, the General Counsel of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board issued complaints which resulted in the issuance on April 6, 1987, of an order consolidating cases, consolidated complaint and notice of 249 hearing The, consolidated complaint alleges that Scran- ton Lace Company (the Respondent) violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). The Respondent filed an answer on April 16, 1987, in which the jurisdictional allegations and certain factual allegations are admitted. The case was tried before me on April 22 and 23, 1987, in Scranton, Pennsylvania, where all parties were given an opportunity to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to make oral argument. Briefs were filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent in June 1987. Based on the whole record in this case and from my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION Scranton Lace Company is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in the manufacture and nonretail distribution of lace tablecloths and other products at its plant located in Scranton, Pennsylvania. It is admittedly an employer en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. The Union, District Lodge 128, International Associa- tion of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE ISSUES 1. Whether certain statements made by Jim Bird and Bill Cameron during employee meetings amounted to un- lawful threats, coercive interrogation, illegal solicitation of grievances, and promises of benefits. 2. Whether the Respondent unlawfully granted certain benefits to its employees. 3. Whether the Respondent imposed more onerous working conditions because of the Union. 4 Whether the Respondent unlawfully discriminated against the employees by refusing to compensate Linda Goonan for jury duty. 5. Whether the Respondent gave Carol Romich a dis- ciplinary warning and informed Carol Jones that her leave was unexcused after they participated in a repre- sentation hearing. Background The Scranton Lace Company manufactures lace prod- ucts, some apparel, placemats, and shower curtains and is located in Scranton, Pennsylvania. After experiencing fi- nancial difficulties for a number of years, it became a productive operation when management reduced em- ployment, improved the production facilities, and made a better product. Since March 1983 James Bird has been the president and chief executive officer of the Company with the overall responsibility for its operation and man- agement. William Cameron was the second in command with the title of plant manager. Although the Respond- ent denied in its answer that these two officers of the Company were "supervisors," their respective responsi- bilities, including the right to hire and fire employees, 294 NLRB No. 19 250 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD demonstrate that they were supervisors within the mean- ing of the Act. Under the guidance of James Bird and William Cameron the Company engaged in certain con- duct and practices which are alleged as unfair labor practices in connection with the Union 's organizational campaign in September 1986. The Union filed a represen- tation petition on October 6, 1986, for all production and maintenance employees at the plant. Following a Stipula- tion for Certification Upon Consent Election on October 29, 1986, and an election on December 12, 1986, where the majonty of the employees voted in favor of the Union, it was certified on December 13, 1986, by the Board as the collective-bargaining representative for most of the Company's regular production and mainte- nance employees (G C. Exhs. 2, 5, 6, & 10). III. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A The Alleged Threats, Solicitation of Grievances, Promises of Benefits, and Grants of Benefits It is uncontested , as alleged in the complaint, that the Respondent conducted several employee meetings in the office of Plant Manager William Cameron on November 28 and December 1-4, 1986. James Bird, Respondent's president, presided at each of the meetings, the contents of which were similar. Bird stressed the new profitability of the Company, emphasized that the Union would not benefit the employees, stated that if the Union were voted in, negotiations would start from a blank sheet of paper, and solicited comments from the employees about their working conditions. Contested, however, is whether the essence of the message included threats to reduce wages and benefits, solicitations of grievances, and promises to remedy such grievances or to grant benefits. The testimony of several employee witnesses was that Bird's statements included such message. Employee Carol Romich, who attended the meeting on December 1 with other employees, testi- fied that Bird told them that "if the union came in the first of the year, we would start with a blank sheet of paper" and that wages would be changed, "[s]ome would be the same, some would be less" (Tr. 46-47, 85) She also recalled Bird's comments that the employees would lose their Blue Cross and Blue Shield insurance. During cross-examination she agreed with counsel's questions that Bird also said the wages or benefits could "increase, decrease or remain the same" (Tr. 80). Romich testified that when Bird asked the employees if they had any complaints or problems, she replied that a warning which she had received was unfair. According to Romich: "He said he thought it was fair and that he had known that it was given to the IAM and I told him yes, because I had done it. And he proceeded to ask me why it was given to them and I proceeded to tell him" (Tr. 48). Maxine Hughes attended the first meeting on Novem- ber 28 along with several other employees. In addition to Bird, present were also Plant Manager Cameron and his secretary. Hughes testified that Bird first wanted to know if the employees had any complaints. Following a discussion of several complaints, Bird said "that if this union came in he would start right from the beginning with a blank sheet of paper. That he would start every- body off at $3.50 an hour and that4there would be no se- niority" (Tr. 181). When asked by counsel whether he could have said that they might retain what they had or get more or less, she replied that she did not recall such a statement The December 2 meeting was attended by Carol Jones. She testified as follows about the substance of Bird's comments (Tr. 121-122): Mr. Bird opened , explaining that during the past few years he had cleaned the plant up. He also ex- plained about he had made a modest profit for the year, and then he proceeded to tell us that he didn't care whether we voted for the new union coming in or we didn't vote for the new union coming in. But if we did vote the union in, some of the pays would be cut to $3.50 an hour. Others would depend on what department you worked in on what your pay would be. Our benefits would be taken away, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, vacation, holidays, and that he would start with a blank piece of paper and that when he was negotiating, we'd have to get it back He also told us if we went on strike he would replace us with outside people.' When asked whether Bird might have indicated that wages and benefits could increase, remain the same, or be less, she testified that she did not recall him saying that. Another employee, Patricia Hannon, testified about the December 3 meeting in the plastic department. She testified that Bird "started off saying- asking if we had any problems in our department" (Tr. 154). She men- tioned trouble with the heat and requested another kero- sene heater. Bird promised that he would supply one. The group of employees also told him about problems with the ladies' room. Again Bird promised to have it fixed. According to Hannon, Bird also said that "he'd start off with the blank sheet of paper . . . that he would cut our pays to $3.50" (Tr. 155). She also recalls him saying that once pay was $3.50 an hour, negotiations might result in more, less, or the same pay (Tr. 177). Mary Wright, a 40-year veteran who lost her job as a full-time folder, testified about attending an employee meeting where Bird told the six assembled employees that the Company would "start from scratch" and that the employees would lose their benefits, including Blue Cross and Blue Shield, and that wages could" go one way or the other, either get a raise or get cut" (Tr. 105). The testimony of Jim Bird and Bill Cameron, as well as a written summary of the meetings , was similar but not the same as the scenario descnbed by these employee witnesses. In his testimony, Bird described the employee meetings as consisting of two parts, one "part of the meeting was company position on the union organizing, and the other part of it was a gripe session" (Tr. 220). He told them: "We would be starting from a blank sheet I Other employees did not recall any reference to strikes during these meetings Moreover, Bird may well have explained his right to hire re- placements in the event of an economic strike The record does not con- tain sufficient reliable evidence to make a finding in this issue SCRANTON LACE CO of paper. Nothing,riwas guaranteed . . . . That their wages could go up, could go down or remain the same." He further testified that he "told them that all benefits they had were negotiable, they could either get more, less or stay the same" (Tr. 221). With regard to Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Bird said that if he mentioned it during the meetings, he "would have mentioned only that they could stay the same, they could lose it." He similarly testified with respect to wages. Cameron's testimony was similar He testified that the "meetings started [with] Jim Bird asking for any com- plaints or problems or any grievances any of the employ- ees had" (Tr. 293). According to Cameron's testimony, "Jim Bird men- tioned that if the new union is elected, we would start from a blank sheet of paper at negotiations" and that wages, fringe benefits, and Blue Cross and Blue Shield benefits "could remain the same, go higher or go lower" (Tr. 294) The minutes of the meetings similarly reflect Respondent's version of the substance of the meetings (R. Exh. 4) A fair evaluation of the evidence shows that the Re- spondent's testimony and the minutes were general and sometimes vague. The testimony of the employee wit- nesses, however, was consistent and unequivocal. This testimony, which I credit, was that the Respondent's message to them during the employee meetings was that if the Union was voted in their wages would be reduced and their benefits, including Blue Cross and Blue Shield, would be cut and negotiations would then begin with a blank sheet of paper. Considering the surrounding cir- cumstances, the methodical meetings from November 28 to December 4, with a small group of employees in the offices of the plant manager, in the presence of the chief executive, the plant manager, and a note-taking secre- tary,, during the height of the union campaign, the con- clusion is inescapable . The Respondent's message was not made in the context of a prophesy, but in the form of threats NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U S. 575, 618 (1969). The clear implication was that the employees would lose because management would take action on its own initiative in retaliation for the employees' choice of the union. The Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Moreover, the record is also clear that each meeting began with an invitation by Bird for the employees to express any complaints or grievances. The Respondent has shown that it has a past history of soliciting employ- ees' suggestions. When Bird first came to Scranton Lace in 1983, he conducted quality circles, instituted the open- door policy, the 48-hour rule, and employee suggestion awards. The purpose of these policies was for the em- ployees to "look at the way they were currently doing their job" and find "a better way of doing it" or to bring up problems in their departments such as "are the goods being brought in the correct condition, are they being accepted; what can we do to make that job easier; the environment better, make the work flow more smoothly, more efficiently and have less errors in the plant" (R. 212). Bird quickly, after a year or two, delegated these meetings to Bill Cameron because the employees were too easily intimidated by Bird. In the years thereafter, 251 the foremen were expected to hold such meetings. The 48-hour rule was instituted to encourage employees to take a problem to their foreman, if they did not get a re- sponse they could then go to Cameron with their com- plaint. The Company also had a labor management coun- cil, but that council consisted only of foremen and man- agement. In spite of all these programs designed to stim- ulate employee suggestions, it is clear from Cameron's and Bird 's testimony, as well as the minutes of the qual- ity control meetings, that their purpose was to improve productivity at the plant, eliminate waste, and make a better product. (R. Exh. 9.) Few if any of these pro- grams elicited .or were designed to provide a forum for employees to voice their complaints regarding their ben- efits, their pay, or their working conditions. The meetings of November 28 and December 1986 were not a routine continuation of any such programs, but were specifically initiated because of the union cam- paign. This is of course immediately apparent because the meetings dealt specifically with the union campaign they were conducted by the chief executive who had not conducted such meetings in years, and because manage- ment promised to improve working conditions, such as a malfunctioning bathroom and the lack of heat in the workplace. It is clear that the Respondent's manner and method of solicitation was significantly altered. Carbon- neau Industries, 228 NLRB 597 (1977). The Respondent not only promised to respond to the employee grievance but it resolved them. The record shows that the restrooms which had been in disrepair for years were promptly repaired; furthermore, management supplied a second kerosene heater to the plastics depart- ment. The record therefore clearly shows that the Re- spondent solicited employee grievances, promised to remedy the solicited grievances, and in fact granted ben- efits in the form of additional heat in the working area and a repaired bathroom. Because the action was taken shortly prior to the election, the timing of the action was reasonably calculated to interfere with the employees' freedom of choice in voting for or against the Union. NLRB v. Exchange Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405, 409 (1964) Such conduct violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. B. The Alleged Interrogation The alleged interrogation of Carol Romich occurred during the employee meeting on December 1, 1986 Romich, responding to Bird's invitation to express griev- ances, complained about the disciplinary warning given to her when she failed to report for work on October 29, the day of the Board hearing. Romich testified as follows (Tr. 48): "He said he thought it was fair and that he had known it was given to the IAM and I told him yes, be- cause I had done it. And he proceeded to ask me why it was and I proceeded to tell him." At first blush, the question appears innocuous and noncoercive, but consid- ering all surrounding circumstances, I find that Bird's conduct amounted to unlawful interrogation. Initially, it is clear that the meeting was union related ; it was con- ducted by the chief executive who expressed his views against the Union. It is important to note that after Romich responded to Bird's invitation to express griev- 252 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ances, Bird stated that he knew that she had provided the Union with the warning. He then questioned her why she had done so. This obviously put her on the spot and placed her in a coercive situation in the presence of management and her coworkers. It required the employ- ee to make an observable choice in the presence of her supervisors. The question was designed to elicit her union sympathy during the union campaign only a few days prior to the election. I therefore find that the Re- spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Kurz-Kasch, Inc., 239 NLRB 1044 (1978). C. More Onerous Working Conditions Management responded to the complaints of the em- ployees in the plastics department during the December 3 meeting and supplied additional heat in the workplace on December 5, 1986 (R. Exh. 5). However, on Monday, December 15, which was the working day following the day of the union election on Friday, December 12, 1986, when the Union won, the Respondent removed the kero- sene heater (Tr. 158-159). This action is alleged as a vio- lation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as an imposition of more onerous working conditions because of the union victory. Because the record shows that the heater was returned to the workplace in the plastics department 2 or 3 days later, I would regard the action as de minimis. In any case, the record shows that the heater was removed from the security guard area during the day and placed in the plastics department. After the workshift, it was put back in the security guard station . On some occasions the heater was used in other areas of the plant on a priority basis. The lack of heat for the 2 days immediately after the election may have been coincidental. I would dismiss this allegation of the complaint. misinterpreted I will credit the testimony of Cameron and Kolvick to the extent that such a statement was not made. E. Jury Duty Employee Linda Goonan, a union supporter who at- tended union meetings and signed a union card, served on a jury for 14 days between November 17, 1986, and February 11, 1987. Immediately after she had received her summons for jury duty, she informed her foreman, Dave Perry, and inquired about her pay while she served on the jury. Perry, on consulting with Dick Morgan, head of payroll, told her to turn in her slips on a weekly basis. She also talked to Morgan directly who informed her that she should simply submit the slip which she re- ceived from the court's administrative office. On Decem- ber 3, 1986, she called the Company and was referred to Walter Krzan, head of personnel. He informed her that as of January 1, 1986, company policy had changed, and that under the new policy jury duty would no longer be paid He also said that she was the last one to have re- ceived jury duty pay 2 years earlier. On February 24, 1987, Goonan spoke directly with Jim Bird. She testified as follows about that conversation: Well, I inquired as to why I hadn't been paid and he told me it wasn't a policy of the company to pay. And I again mentioned that I had been paid two years before. He said it was probably a clerical error. At that time, he said if I could show him any- thing in black and white which says they had to pay me, he would be more than happy to So, I re- ferred to a letter that I had received from his office, with the projected earnings for the year. [Tr. 197.] D. The Alleged Threat The union election was held on December 12, 1986. Carol Jones, Denise Peoples, a secretary, Bill Cameron, Bob Kolvick, an engineer, and a Board agent remained in the room to count the votes. Carol Romich testified that after the ballot count Cameron turned around as she was standing in the doorway and said. "You will pay for this." The Respondent argues that the threat was not made and could not have been made because Romich was not present at that time. Cameron also denied in his testimony that he had made that remark and Bob Kol- vick testified that he did not hear Cameron say it (Tr. 296, 303). The record, however, shows that Romich signed the tally of ballots and that she was at the door- way with a group of employees in the hallway so that Cameron could have made that remark (G.C. Exh. 10). It appears to me that had he made such a comment to Romich, other employees who were with Romich would have overheard it or the individuals at the ballot box, in- cluding Carol Jones, would have heard it. Yet, the record contains no such corroboration by anyone. More- over, it would be more plausible if Cameron had made such a threat to union supporter Carol Jones who was in his immediate presence. Although Carol Romich im- pressed me generally as an honest witness, it is possible that Cameron may have made a statement which Romich The document received by Linda Goonan on Novem- ber 21, 1986, after she had already served some jury duty, showed her projected earnings and is silent as to any subtractions for wages lost due to jury duty (G.C. Exh. 9). The General Counsel argues that this change in com- pany policy is an indication of the Respondent's discrimi- natory practices directed at the employees because of their union activities. The Respondent argues that it was not aware of Goonan's union support and that it had not discriminated against her as that change in company policy predated the union campaign. In evaluating the evidence, it is clear that management (Perry and Morgan) initially recognized the policy to compensate their employees for jury duty. However, Bird denied that such a policy existed and then, as re- flected in the Respondent's brief, Bird confirmed Krzan's statement, i.e., that the Company no longer provided pay for jury duty (R. Br. 27). But the Respondent offered no business justification for this change in policy since Su- pervisors Perry2 and Morgan recognized the policy as 2 Although the Respondent denied that Perry was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, the evidence shows that his authority as foreman in the "bleach and dress" and "gray room" departments included such supervisory indicia as the assignment of work to employees, the issuance of discipline, and other mdicia (Tr 35-36) SCRANTON LACE CO. late as November 1986. Krzan's statement that the policy had been changed --effective January 1986 is not credible. Bird's initial denial of the existence of such a policy shows inconsistency in the Respondent's testimony and a lack of candor. This disingenuousness, coupled with the timing of Respondent's denial of the jury duty pay to Goonan shortly after the union election and the Re- spondent's union animus as demonstrated by its other violations of the Act, convinces me that the Respond- ent's unexplained change in policy was directed against its employees who had elected the Union. Even though the Respondent is correct in arguing that the General Counsel had failed to prove that management was aware of Goonan's union support, the Respondent's unilateral change in company policy was a discriminatory act re- flecting one policy while the employees were not union- ized and another after the employees had voted for a union . Such a policy is certainly destructive of their Sec- tion 7 rights and thereby in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. F. Alleged Absenteeism for a Board Proceeding Three employees, Carol Romich, Carol Jones, and Pa- tricia Hannan, were subpoenaed to appear for the repre- sentation hearing on October 29, 1986 (G.C. Exhs. 3 and 4). The three employees involved duly notified their su- pervisors. Carol Romich testified that she notified her su- pervisor, Michael Vispi, on the day before the hearing, October 28, of the subpoena request. Vispi "said it was all right" (Tr. 42). She also testified that she had asked Vispi if he had notified Bill Cameron, to which Vispi re- plied that he had. Carol Jones testified that she notified David Perry early on October 29. Perry's reply was "all right," and "see you tomorrow." Harmon similarly testi- fied that she informed her supervisor, Eleanor Lisowski. Her reply was "no problem." On October 29, the three employees drove to the hearing scheduled for 11 a.m. in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. Those parties agreed to a stipulation for the election, and the proceeding lasted 1 or 2 hours. The testimony of the employees was not required. The employees went to lunch and then home. They reported for work on the following day. Romich testified that she handed her sub- poena to her supervisor who told her later that Cameron would not honor it. She then received a written warning for her absenteeism on October 29 (G.C. Exh. 8). Carol Jones also handed her subpoena to her supervisor, Perry. He told he that she had accumulated a personal day. She had a choice of taking it or be marked absent or tardy for the day. She chose to be marked absent and received an unexcused absence for that day. According to the General Counsel, the Respondent interfered with the employees' right to be absent in order to attend a Board hearing in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (4) of the Act. The Respondent contends that the employees' failure to report for work after the NLRB hearing subjected them to the established company ab- senteeism policy. The law is clear, Section 8(a)(4) makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee because he has filed charges or given testimony under the Act. For example, an employer violates the Act for disciplin- 253 ing an employee who was scheduled to testify, but did not actually testify. Fuqua Homes, 211 NLRB 399 (1974). Here the employees did not actually receive their sub- poenas until the day of the scheduled hearing, but both employees notified their supervisors either on the prior day or in the morning of the same day that they were subpoenaed to appear on October 29. In each instance the supervisors gave permission for them to attend the hearing. They were not instructed to return to work after the hearing was finished, even though the manage- ment officials which were in attendance at the hearing could easily have done so. The Respondent states in its brief that it "does not argue that the employees had no right to attend the hearing at all, it does, however, con- tend that their right to attend a Board proceeding does not necessarily extend to take off additional work time in excess of what is sufficient to profess one's rights, guar- anteed by Section 7 of the Act " (R. Br. 43.) The Re- spondent's argument, however, is inconsistent with the discipline. The General Counsel correctly observed that the discipline was not for tardiness or for the absence for a portion of a workday, but for absenteeism for the entire day. Under these circumstances the two employees were clearly penalized for their protected right to attend a Board hearing. Specialty Steel Treating, 279 NLRB 670 (1986). Similarly, the Respondent's requirement to take personal leave or be marked down for an unexcused ab- sence interfered with the employee's right to attend the hearing. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Scranton Lace Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. District Lodge 128, International Association of Ma- chinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By threatening its employees with reduced wages and benefits if the employees selected the Union as their bargaining representative, the Respondent violated Sec- tion 8(a)(1)-of the Act 4. By soliciting employee grievances and promising benefits and better working conditions and by granting benefits to the employees in order to discourage its em- ployees from selecting the Union as their bargaining rep- resentative, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. By coercively interrogating an employee about her union activities, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 6. By refusing to compensate its employees for jury duty because the employees supported the Union, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 7. By issuing a disciplinary warning or an unexcused absence to its employees because they had attended a representation hearing, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (4) of the Act. 8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 254 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THE REMEDY On concluding that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find it necessary to rec- ommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take cer- tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having unlawfully discriminated against its employees Linda Goonan, Carol Romich, and Carol Jones the Respondent shall make them whole for lost earnings and other benefits computed on a quarterly basis, less net interim earnings in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as computed in New Horizons for the Retarded.3 The Re- spondent shall pay to Linda Goonan the difference be- tween her daily wages from the Respondent and the amount she secured for serving on the jury for the dates from November 17 and February 1987 In addition, the Respondent shall retract and remove the disciplinary warning and the unexcused absence for October 29, 1986, issued to employees Carol Jones and Carol Romich. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed' ORDER The Respondent, Scranton Lace Company, Scranton, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Threatening employees with reduced wages and benefits because of their union support. (b) Soliciting employees ' grievances and promising benefits and better working conditions and granting ben- efits to employees in order to discourage their union ac- tivities. (c) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their union activities. (d) Refusing to compensate its employee for jury duty because the employee supported the Union. (e) Issuing disciplinary warnings or unexcused ab- sences to its employees for attending a representation hearing or other Board proceedings. (f) 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) Make Linda Goonan, Carol Jones, and Carol Romich whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against them, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of this deci- sion. (b) Remove from its files any references to the unlaw- ful actions against the above-named employees and notify them in wasting that this has been done and that such actions will not be used against them in any way 3 283 NLRB 1173 (1987) 4 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations , the findings, conclusions, and recommended order shall, as provided in Sec 102 46 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes (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 Scranton , Pennsylvania, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."5 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 4, 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. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dis- missed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not spe- cifically found. 5 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the 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 " 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 to post and abide by this notice. Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights. To organize To form, join, or assist any union To bargain collectively through representatives of their own choice To act together for other mutual aid or protec- tion To choose not to engage in any of these protect- ed concerted activities. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with reduced wages and benefits because of their union activities. WE WILL NOT solicit employee grievances and prom- ise benefits and better working conditions or grant bene- fits to our employees in order to discourage their union activities WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees regarding their union activities. WE WILL NOT refuse to compensate our employees for jury duty because they supported the Union. SCRANTON LACE CO. 255 WE WILL NOT issue disciplinary warnings or unex- resulting from our discrimination against them, including cused absences to our employees for attending proceed- compensation to Linda Goonan for her jury duty and a ings of the National Labor Relations Board. retraction of the disciplinary warning or unexcused ab- WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere sences given to Carol Jones and Carol Romich in con- with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of nection with the representation hearing. the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL make Linda Goonan, Carol Jones and Carol SCRANTON LACE COMPANY Romich whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits