United Cable Television Corp.

138 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD United Cable Television Corporation and Freight Checkers, Clerical Workers and Helpers, Team- sters Local 856 a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO. Case 32-CA- 9204 July 27, 1990 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHARIMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS DEVANEY AND OVIATT Upon a charge filed by the Union on October 5, 1987, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint and notice of hearing on December 22, 1988, alleging that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging and failing to reinstate employ- ee Bill Blight The Respondent filed a timely answer admitting in part and denying in part the allegations in the complaint, and raising the Board's deferral to an arbitrator's award as an affirmative defense On April 10, 1989, the General Counsel, the Union, and the Respondent filed with the Board a stipulation and motion to transfer the case to the Board The parties stated that the stipulation and attached exhibits constituted the entire record in this case and that they waived a hearing and deci- sion by an administrative law judge On June 13, 1989, the Board approved the stipulation and trans- ferred the proceeding to the Board for issuance of a decision and order Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondent filed briefs The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel On the entire record and briefs, the Board makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTION The Respondent, a California corporation with an office and place of business in Hayward, Cali- fornia, is engaged in the sale and distribution of cable television services During the 12-month period preceding issuance of the complaint, a rep- resentative penod, the Respondent, in the course and conduct of its operations, derived gross reve- nues in excess of $100,000 and transmitted pro- gramming originating outside the State of Califor- nia and advertisements for nationally distributed products We find that the Respondent is an employer en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act II ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A Facts' Bill Blight was employed by the Respondent from July 1982 to September 29, 1987 During this time, the Respondent and the Union negotiated two successive 3-year collective-bargaining agree- ments, and the Union survived one deauthonzation and two decertification petitions These included an employee petition filed in 1981 following a strike in which the Respondent had hired permanent re- placements, and an employer petition filed by the Respondent in 1987, which was later withdrawn in settlement of unfair labor practice charges Before the settlement, the Respondent sent its employees letters urging them to reject the Union The Union brought the employer petition to the attention of the city councils and mayors of two cities in Cali- fornia to which the Respondent had applied to renew its franchise Shortly thereafter, the Re- spondent's western division vice president, David Leonard, held a meeting with employees at which he announced that Yesterday, your union representatives went to the mayors and certain city council members of Hayward and San Leandro and asked them not to renew our franchises Without these franchises, there will be no cable system Without the cable system, there aren't any jobs Because of this development, our company now has to carefully review all of its options After Leonard's meeting, employee Blight at- tended a Hayward, California city council meeting in his capacity as union-shop steward At the meet- ing, Blight thanked the mayor for persuading man- agement to respect the employees' right to repre- sentation and announced that management had told him and other employees that the Union had asked the mayor not to extend the city's franchise agree- ment with United Cable Blight continued At this point we don't know what to believe Many of us feel that we would like the con- tract between United Cable and its Union members smiled before the City most of us reside in s a long term contract with 'The parties have stipulated to the authenticity of the transcript and exhibits at the arbitration heanng held April 5, 1988 The parties further stipulated that all witnesses would testify before the Board as they had at the arbitration hearing The following recitation of facts is based on the parties' stipulation of fact, supplemented by uncontroverted evidence from the arbitration hearing 299 NLRB No 20 UNITED CABLE TELEVISION CORP 139 United Cable We don't want to jeopardize our jobs or United Cable's future in this area What we want is to secure them with fair con- tracts We want to avoid a strike and consider the franchise negotiations one of the best pow- erful aversions [sic] to a strike in that it is an encouragement to United Cable to negotiate in good faith with United Cable employees and to do so as quickly as possible Several weeks later, Blight received a letter from Respondent District Manager Mario Dieckmann, a stipulated supervisor In the letter, Dieckmann noted Blight's remarks before the Hayward city council and Blight's attendance at a meeting of the San Leandro city council where, Dieckmann ob- served, "your union spoke in opposition to United's franchise renewal application" Dieckmann's letter further advised Blight that, while the Respondent respects Blight's right to speak at city council meetings, it also recognizes that, because he is an employee, his words "carry more weight" than statements by the nonemployee public Dieckmann reminded Blight that "[u]nder well-established legal principles and your union contract," Blight could be discharged for "willful or deliberate misconduct that results in measurable economic loss to the Company" and warned him You must not misrepresent or defame the Company, or interfere with the Company's conduct of its business If you do anything like this, United Cable Television will take it very seriously It will pursue all appropriate legal and/or contractually privileged actions against you Negotiations for a new collective-bargaining agreement began in the spring of 1987, after the Respondent withdrew its election petition and the parties agreed to "bury the hatchet" During nego- tiations, the Respondent successfully advanced eco- nomic arguments to resist a proposal by the Union to offer employees full-day rather than half-day holidays About June 5, 1987, the parties entered into a contract for the term April 1, 1987, to March 31, 1990 On September 17, 1987, Respondent President Fred Vierra held a meeting with employees at which he solicited questions from the audience Blight asked the following questions at the meet- ing Mr Vierra, We're always hearing about all the systems United Cable is buying or building around the country And we're happy for United Cable's success, but on a personal note most of us feel that the time for sharing this economic success with all the employees is overdue We don't have to read Fortune Mag- azine to verify United Cable's record earnings and growth, yet we're not making a wage we can live on in this area There are smaller, less successful cable companies in this area that are paying their starting employees more than I am getting paid after five years of working hard to get where I am today When, if ever, is United Cable going to see its way clear to- wards paying its faithful employees (the same employees that helped put United Cable in the top ten of all cable companies in the country) as good as other cable companies are paying theirs? We're not asking for outrageous salaries, we're asking for salaries that reflect the kind of work we do and the success of the company we work for In your annual report, you mention your dedication toward stock holders, which is fine But you must also be dedicated to appre- ciating the front line individuals that help put this company where it is today We all feel positive that United Cable is doing great and, as a matter of fact, won't go broke sharing its record revenues with us So, Mr Vierra, have I made a mistake in ex- pecting United Cable to be a good place to work, where I can make a decent living? The same day, a group of the Respondent's em- ployees gave Blight a letter with nine signatures leveling the following criticism at the views Blight expressed at the employee meeting Dear Bill At the last All Employees Meeting, when the President of United came, you stated that the employees were not satisfied with their sal- aries and wanted more We feel that you were very rude and uncouth We do not appreciate you saying "the em- ployees" If you would like to express your opinions, along with opinions from the em- ployees, maybe you should get their names so that we aren't included in your uncouth man- ners If you feel you are treated unjustly—see the Union Some of us are satisfied Thank you (signatures) FOR YOUR INFORMATION, THIS IS NOT MANAGEMENT'S IDEA On September 24, 1987, Blight responded to his coworkers with the following letter, which he posted on the union bulletin board 140 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD To United Cable Employees Isn't it great, Mr Vierra can come out here and tell us just how much money United Cable is making? He tells us we just loaned millions to Ted Turner, were checking out Europe and were checking out Australia—we are putting money here and we are putting money there Yes, I have been worned lately about Ted Turner being able to pay his bills Why don't they start putting more money in the employees [sic] pockets? Mr Vierra stated in the meeting that he didn't even know what we were getting paid out here How can you let Dave Leonard get up in front of you and say anything? Why didn't anyone say aren't you the same man who got up in front of all of us the first part of this year making state- ments such as, "United Cable is thinking about selling this system—this might be the end of Cable in this area forever and the Union called the Mayor and told him not to sign the fran- chise"—NONE OF WHICH WAS TRUE And to the employees who wrote me a letter after the meeting calling me rude and uncouth It was obviously more difficult for me than for you, to sit there and listen to Mr Vierra brag about United Cables [sic] great wealth, for these reasons Recently a few committee members and I participated in our contract negotiations, the company told us they could not afford to pay employee medical costs anymore, they could not afford to pay us what Gill Cable is paying their employees I guess your [sic] not out there climbing 10 to 15 telephone poles a day, hanging 30 feet off the ground or crawling un- derneath houses Why dont't [sic] you cruise around with an installer for a week and ask him how satisfied he is with his pay? And how can you forget so soon Mano and his petition to the NLRB? The same petition which many of you signed under false pretenses ? What about the results of this same petition ? Results that brought to light company tactics. of inter- rogating employees about their own or fellow employees [sic] union activities This was against the law and they were STOPPED thanks to other employees and myself So where do you get off telling me to see the union? I am the union and I am one of the persons who sat at the bargaining table a few months back, speaking up for all of us so you could have the pay your [sic] so happy with AS FOR A LIST OF NAMES, I NOTICE TEN SIGNATURES ON YOUR LETTER, NONE OF WHICH INCLUDED ANY LINE TECHS, TECHNICIANS, INSTALL- ERS, ETC I RECEIVED 3 TIMES AS MANY PHONE CALLS AND STATE- MENTS THANKING ME FOR MY STATEMENT THAN YOU HAVE SIGNA- TURES ON YOUR LETTER Bill Blight Shop Steward—Local 856 On September 29, 1987, the Respondent dis- charged Blight In the Respondent's discharge letter to Blight, District Manager Dieckmann stated that "[t]his communication [i e, Blight's Sep- tember 24 letter], all by itself, justifies (indeed, compels) your discharge" Dieckmann registered the following objections to Blight's letter You implore employees not to allow [Vice President Leonard] to say anything to them, You misrepresent [the vice president's] earlier statements to employees and you criticize em- ployees because they did not challenge [the vice president] and accuse him of making state- ments, "none of which was true" In short, you incite employees to turn their backs on a Company Vice President, to refuse to listen to him, to refuse to meet with him, because, you say, he is a har Also, you blatantly misrepre- sent cntical facts about the recent union con- tract negotiations You paint a quite inaccu- rate, and damaging, picture of the Company as one that "cannot afford" more wages and ben- efits You paint United Cable as a company that either lied to its employees dunng the contract negotiations or as a company in finan- cial distress Neither picture is true United Cable never took a "could not afford" position about any subject in the negotiations, and your statements to the contrary are false Your September 24 letter misrepresents and defames the Company, it outrageously inter- feres with the Company's quite legitimate desire to maintain respect in the work place, and to maintain an orderly, responsible work- ing relationship between management and em- ployees for the mutual benefit of all con- cerned Under the terms of the union contract, your conduct can be, and is, labeled insubordina- tion It also can be, and is, characterized as of- fenses like insolence, abuse of management, defamation and/or business disparage- ment Finally, the discharge letter accused Blight of un- dermining the Respondent's renewed "relationship UNITED CABLE TELEVISION CORP 141 of acceptance and mutual respect" with the Union, with which it had "made peace" and agreed to "bury the hatchet" In our opinion, your statements to Mr Vierra were counterproductive You do not help the Company-Teamsters' relationship by encouraging the Company's President to bar- gain directly with you and your fellow em- ployees, in the very face of an existing collec- tive bargaining agreement Blight filed a timely grievance over the dis- charge under the appropnate provisions of the 1987-1990 collective-bargaining agreement On Oc- tober 5, 1987, the Union filed an unfair labor prac- tice charge On October 28, 1987, the Regional Di- rector for Region 32 deferred the charge to the contractual grievance procedure in accordance with CoMyer Insulated Wire, 192 NLRB 837 (1971) B The Arbitrator's Opinion and Award The arbitrator conducted a hearing on April 5, 1988, and issued his opinion and award November 9, 1988 Before the arbitrator, the Respondent con- tended m essence that Blight's September 24, 1987 letter to employees "constituted gross insubordina- tion" warranting discharge under the "just cause" provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement The Respondent argued that the letter was neither concerted nor f•rotected by the Act, and that, even if concerted, Blight's manner of expression was so outrageous as to remove it from the Act's protec- tion The Union's position was that Blight was dis- charged for protected concerted activity—commu- nication to other employees intended to induce group action on an issue of mutual concern—and that the Respondent failed to establish that the dis- charge would have taken place in the absence of Blight's protected conduct Nor, the Union main- tained, did Blight disrupt the workplace by his written communication to employees so as to exceed the bounds of protected activity The arbitrator agreed with the Union that Blight was engaged in concerted activity when he posted the September 24 letter In evaluating whether Blight's actions were protected, however, the arbi- trator found that Blight's motivation rendered his actions only "partially protected" by the Act Ac- cording to the arbitrator, the protected status of Blight's activity must be determined with reference to the "climate of discord followed by the mutual desire of the parties for detente" that preceded the discharge and by whether Blight's motivation was to foster or disturb that climate of "detente" That the Grievant was motivated to prevent the Company and the Union from "burying the hatchet" is the major and unmistakable fact that stands out from the grievant's con- duct It is clear by postmg the letter, he was trying to stir things up so as to make it possi- ble to renege on the deal which the parties had already approved, and again, a deal to which he himself had also been a party By putting the letter on the Union bulletin board, he incorrectly gave employees the impression that the Union was reneging on the detente to which the parties had agreed they had at last put in place Surely, because he was a shop steward and not just an employee, he should not have thus misrepresented the Union's posi- tion It was not the Union as such which placed the letter on the bulletin board criticiz- ing the vice-president's credibility The Union was not even informed by the Gnevant that he was writing that letter, let alone that he in- tended to use the Union's bulletin board to denigrate the vice-president's integrity in such an outspoken and challenging manner The arbitrator also found Blight's letter to em- ployees to be disloyal conduct In support of this finding the arbitrator found relevant the facts that (1) the letter to employees was in wntmg and not merely expressed orally, (2) the act of posting the letter was "outside the relationship of the Union and the Company and contrary to it", (3) Blight, as a former member of the union negotiating team, gave employees an "insider's view" that the Com- pany had lied to its employees during contract ne- gotiations and thereby intended "real harm" to his employer, (4) the language and tone of the letter were "at the minimum disruptive and at the most inflammatory", (5) in the "relatively closed-socie- ty" of industry, an employee's nghts to free speech are circumscribed to some extent in the employ- ment relationship, and (6) the shop steward is not entitled to operate "counter-clockwise to his Union," and, without the approval of his Union, cannot go off on a "frolic of his own" Based on these observations, the arbitrator con- cluded as follows (1) the Gnevant falls outside the zone of fully protected concerted activity because a good part of his motivation was to abort the rap- prochement reached between the Company and the Union and because he demonstrated a pattern of unacceptable behavior, (2) though the Grievant did not have an absolute right to speak out in the way that he did at the time he did or for the reasons that he did, given the expressed desire for detente by both parties and the goal of "burying the hatchet" [foot- 142 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD note omitted] nonetheless the right to speak freely partially protected him in that discharge became an improper penalty, (3) it is therefore the Arbitrator's decision that the Grievant is to be reinstated but without back pay The Grievant is admonished not to go outside the process of collective bargaining to pursue his own goals whatever they may be The arbitrator awarded Blight reinstatement with- out backpay C The Unfair Labor Practice Complaint and Stipulation The Regional Director did not defer to the arbi- trator's award and, on December 22, 1988, issued complaint alleging that the Respondent discharged Blight for his protected concerted activities in vio- lation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act In its answer to the complaint, the Respondent denied the commission of unfair labor practices and averred as an affirmative defense that the Board should defer to the opinion and award of the arbi- trator In March 1989, the Respondent, the Charging Party, and the General Counsel entered into a stip- ulation in which they agreed that the proceeding could be submitted directly to the Board for deci- sion III CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES It is not disputed that the proceedings before the arbitrator were fair and regular and that all parties agreed to be bound by the decision of the arbitra- tor There is also no contention that the arbitrator did not consider both contractual and unfair labor practice issues Relying on Spielberg Mfg Co, 112 NLRB 1080 (1955), and Olin Corp, 268 NLRB 573 (1984), the General Counsel argues that the arbitrator's opin- ion and award are repugnant to the purposes and policies of the Act and therefore that the Board should not defer to the award Specifically, the General Counsel contends that, contrary to the ar- bitrator, Blight was discharged for conduct that was fully protected by Section 7 of the Act Fur- ther, the General Counsel argues that there is no Board precedent supporting the arbitrator's find- ings that Blight acted in a manner inconsistent with his Union's wishes and that his letter was inflam- matory and disruptive Nor, argues the General Counsel, was Blight's letter so defamatory, false, or disparaging as to lose its protection under the Act Because Blight's conduct was improperly labeled "partially" protected by the arbitrator as a predi- cate for denying him backpay, the General Counsel submits, the award is "palpably wrong," and not entitled to deferral under Olin Corp, supra The Respondent argues that the Board should defer to the arbitrator's award because Olin Corp does not require that it be totally consistent with Board precedent The Respondent notes that the arbitrator found that Blight was motivated by a desire to scuttle the agreement to "bury the hatch- et" between the Respondent and the Union and thereby discouraged the practice of collective bar- gaining The Respondent argues therefore that a decision by the Board declining to defer to the award would itself disserve the pnnciples of collec- tive bargaining Finally, the Respondent contends, substitution of the Board's findmgs-of fact and con- clusions for those of the arbitrator would contra- vene the pnnciples of Olin IV DISCUSSION We agree with the General Counsel that the ar- bitration award is clearly repugnant to the purposes and policies of the Act and that deferral to the award is therefore not warranted Under Olin, an arbitrator's award will be found repugnant to the Act if it is palpably wrong, i e, not susceptible to an interpretation consistent with the Act 2 The issue here is whether the arbitrator's decision find- ing that Blight's letter was "partially protected" under Section 7 but denying backpay is susceptible to an interpretation consistent with the Act 3 First, we find merit in the General Counsel's contention that the concept of "partial protection" advanced by the arbitrator in support of his award, is not recognized under the Act Either Blight's conduct is protected by the Act or it is not The arbitrator found that conduct which the parties agree was the sole basis for Blight's discharge, i e, the posting of his September 24 letter to employ- ees, is protected concerted activity The denial of backpay can be reconciled with this finding only if something Blight did results in forfeiture of his pro- tected status We find no support in the arbitrator's opinion and award or in the record before us for a finding that Blight's letter was removed from the Act's protection For Blight to forfeit his Section 7 pro- tection, the tone and content of Blight's letter, which allegedly disparaged his employer, must be so "flagrant, violent, or extreme" as to render Blight unfit for further service See Dregs & Krump Mfg, 221 NLRB 309, 315 (1975), enfd 544 F 2d 320 (7th Cir 1976), S-B Mfg Co, 270 NLRB 485 (1984) The arbitrator did not so find And, while 2 268 NLRB at 574 3 See also Cone Mills Corp, 298 NLRB 661, 665 (1990) UNITED CABLE TELEVISION CORP 143 the letter is hardly an example of an entirely tem- perate communication, we do not find it is so fla- grant or extreme as to remove Blight's conduct from the Act's protections The Board has cau- tioned that "great care must be taken to distinguish between disparagement and what may be the airing of highly sensitive issues" Allied Aviation Service Go, 248 NLRB 229 (1980), enfd mem 636 F 2d 1210 (3d Cir 1980) Indeed, because Blight's letter was addressed to other employees and posted on the union bulletin board, it was a form of intraun- ion communication, and, therefore, it is not even classifiable among those cases of third-party-direct- ed disparagement of an employer's product, busi- ness, or reputation, condemned as "disloyalty" by the Supreme Court in NLRB v Electrical Workers IBEW Local 1229 (Jefferson Broadcasting), 346 U S 464 (1953) 4 In finding that Blight's activities were not fully protected under the Act, the arbitrator relied on Emporium Capwell Co v Western Addition Commu- nity Organization, 420 U S 50 (1975) That reliance is misplaced In that case, employees were dis- charged after picketing and handbilling their em- ployer to protest allegedly racially discriminatory employment practices and after they sought to bar- gain directly with their employer about these prac- tices The Supreme Court found that the employ- ees' activity was unprotected The Court relied on the principle of exclusivity, embodied in Section 9(a) of the Act, which requires that represented employees not bypass their collective-bargaining agent in airing grievances In contrast to the protest in Emporium Capwell, Blight addressed his letter and its message not to his employer, but to fellow employees, and neither the content of the letter nor record evidence con- cerning its preparation and posting supports the ar- bitrator's finding that it was "intended to block the parties' desire for detente" Even assuming Blight's letter-posting worked against his bargaining repre- sentative's prior pledge to "bury the hatchet" with his employer, we note that the Board has recog- nized that dissident activity "which is in support of, and does not seek to usurp or replace the certi- fied bargaining representative" is protected if it is "more nearly in support of the things which the union is trying to accomplish" Energy Coal Part- nership, 269 NLRB 770 (1984) See also Dreis & Krump Mfg, supra at 316 Blight's letter advocated higher wages Respondent has not shown that this position was contrary to Local 856's goals So far as the record shows, the Union neither criticized nor disavowed Blight's letter, and it pursued a 4 See generally Sacramento Union, 291 NLRB 540, sec III,A,1 (1988), and cases cited therein, enfd 889 F 2d 210 (9th Or 1989) grievance to arbitration on his behalf when he was discharged for posting it Thus, we find nothing in the arbitrator's opinion and award that provides any basis for the Respond- ent's discharging Blight, apart from his activity protected by Section 7, or that would warrant the forfeiture of his Section 7 protection or justify withholding his backpay Accordingly, the award is clearly repugnant to the Act, and we shall not defer to it 5 Based on our independent review of the record, we find that Blight was engaged in protected con- certed union activity on September 24, 1987, when he posted a letter on the union bulletin board at the Respondent's facility responding to employee criti- cism of his questions to the Respondent's president, and discussing work-related matters of mutual con- cern to all bargaining unit employees See Roadway Express, 279 NLRB 302 (1986) As the parties have stipulated that the September 24 letter was the sole basis for the Respondent's decision to discharge Blight, and as we have found that posting the letter was protected union activity, it follows that his dis- charge violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act CONCLUSION OF LAW By discharging Bill Blight for his protected con- certed activities, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act Having found that the Respondent unlawfully discharged Bill Blight, we shall order it to offer Blight immediate and full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a sub- stantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or privileges previ- ously enjoyed, 6 and make him whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against him, as prescribed in F W Woolworth Go, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus in- 5 We do not suggest that the deferral is foreclosed in all situations where an arbitration award provides less than a make-whole remedy See Cone Mills Corp , supra, 667 fn 19 6 The parties stipulated that the Respondent's attorney and the discn- mmatee "had a discussion on or about November 11, 1988 about rein- statement" and that on behalf of Blight the Union orally refused the offer about November 16, 1988 Our Order of reinstatement is without preju- dice to the Respondent's opportunity in compliance to demonstrate that It has already made a valid offer of reinstatement 144 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD terest as computed in New Horizons for the Retard- ed, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987). ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondent, United Cable Television Corpora- tion, Hayward, California, its officers, agents, suc- cessors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against employees in regard to hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employ- ment, because of their engaging in concerted activi- ties for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. (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. Take the following affirmative action neces- sary to effectuate the purposes of the Act. (a) Offer Bill Blight immediate and full reinstate- ment to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, with- out prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of earnings or other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against him, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the deci- sion. (b) Remove from its files any reference to the unlawful discharge of Bill Blight, and notify him in writing that this has been done and that the dis- charge 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 copy- ing, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (d) Post at its facility in Hayward, California, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."7 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Re- gional Director for Region 32, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive 7 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." days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply. APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered 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 representa- tives of their own choice To act together for other mutual aid or pro- tection To choose not to engage in any of these protected concerted activities. WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discrimi- nate against you in regard to hire or tenure of em- ployment, or any term or condition of employ- ment, because of your concerted activities for pur- poses of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. 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 Bill Blight immediate and full re- instatement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed and WE WILL make him whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from his discharge, less any net interim earnings, plus interest. WE WILL remove from our personnel records any references to Bill Blight's unlawful discharge, and WE WILL notify him in writing that that action will not be used by us against him in the future. UNITED CABLE TELEVISION CORPORATION