Kogy'S Inc.

202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Kogy's Inc. and Evelyn M. Christy. Case 7-CA- 20507 21 September 1984 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS ZIMMERMAN AND HUNTER On 19 August 1983 Administrative Law Judge George Norman issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and both a supporting and response brief. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions only to the extent consistent with this Decision and Order. Contrary to the judge, we find that the Respond- ent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by constructively discharging employees Cathy Ray- mond, Laurie Clark, Jeannette Alvaro, Kathleen Sutton, and Evelyn M. Christy because they en- gaged in protected concerted activity. On 31 March 1982 the Respondent's part-owner, president, and secretary-treasurer, Bean, met with his day staff to set forth new rules and enforce extant rules relating to working conditions. The new rules related to drop time, prohibition against switching late station, checking side work, and dis- charge for the second occurrence of wearing an in- complete uniform. Furthermore, Bean told employ- ees that it was his restaurant and he would run it his way, that these were the rules and there would be no discussion as there had always been in the past, including no discussion with regard to his firing of employee Fell.' After the meeting the five aforenamed employees terminated their employ- ment. The judge found that these employees left be- cause they could not work under the conditions laid down by Bean, particularly the prohibition against discussing work-related matters among themselves. He further found that, based on Bean's take-it-or-leave-it statements and the testimony of the employees that they therefore felt unwanted, Bean intended and expected a few employees to leave after the meeting. He concluded that, by pro- hibiting the employees from discussing Fell's dis- charge and other work-related matters, Bean condi- 1 We find, in concurrence with the judge, that the promulgation of these rules violated Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act. tioned the employees' continued employment on their abandonment of their Section 7 rights. We do not agree with this conclusion. The Board has held 2 that a two-pronged test must be met to establish a constructive discharge: "First, the burdens imposed upon the employee must cause, and be intended to cause, a change in his working conditions so difficult or unpleasant as to force him to resign"; second, the resultant burdens must be due to the employee's union activities. In the instant case, we do not find that the work rules imposed such difficult or unpleasant burdens on employees that they were compelled to quit nor was there such an intention on the part of Bean. Hoerner Waldorf Corp. 3 relied on by the judge is distinguishable. It involved an employee known by the company to be an avid union supporter whose continued employment was conditioned by the em- ployer on his compliance with a no-solicitation rule by which no other employee had to abide. The. Board in Hoerner found that the employee's quit- ting rather than be the single follower of the no- solicitation rule constituted a constructive dis- charge. In the instant case the Respondent's take-it-or- leave-it statements were made to all employees at- tending the staff meeting and were not, as in Hoerner, intended to induce specific individuals to suffer coercive adverse conditions or to quit. Al- though we agree with the judge that the rules pro- mulgated by Bean were discriminatorily motivated and a violation of the Act, the Board has long held 4 that there is no constructive discharge when an employee quits in protest against unfair labor practices. Accordingly, even granting that the five employees quit in response to the promulgation of rules which were violative of the Act, we do not find this to be a constructive discharge but merely an act of protest by the employees. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondent, Kogy's Inc., Troy, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Discharging its employees for engaging in ac- tivities protected under Section 7 of the Act. (b) Giving force or effect to any of the new rules, procedures, or disciplines promulgated on 31 March 1982. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex- 2 Crystal Princeton Refining Co, 222 NLRB 1068, 1069 (1976); Valley West Welding Co., 265 NLRB 1597 (1982). 3 227 NLRB 612 (1976) 4 Valley West Welding Co., supra at 1599 272 NLRB No. 26 KOGY'S INC 203 ercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act 2 Take the following affirmative action neces- sary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Offer Sharon Fell immediate and full rein- statement to her former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and make her whole for any loss of earnings and other bene- fits suffered as a result of the discrimination against her, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision (b) Expunge from its records any reference to the termination of Sharon Fell, notify her in writ- ing that this has been done and that evidence of this unlawful conduct will not be used as a basis for future discipline against her (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 office and place of business at Troy, Michigan, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix "5 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and main- tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to em- ployees 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 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 Na bona] Labor Relations Board shall read Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation al Labor Relations Board' 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 any of our employees if they engage in protected concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection WE WILL NOT give any force or effect to the new rules, procedures, or discipline promulgated on 31 March 1982 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 Sharon Fell immediate and full reinstatement to her former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed and WE WILL make her whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from her discharge, less any net interim earnings, plus interest WE WILL expunge from our records any refer- ence to the discharge of employee Sharon Fell, and notify her in writing that this has been done and that evidence of this unlawful conduct will not be used as a basis for future discipline against her KOGY'S INC DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE GEORGE NORMAN, Administrative Law Judge The trial in this case was conducted before me in Detroit, Michigan, on May 4 and 5, 1983 The complaint and notice of hearing which was issued by the Acting Re- gional Director for Region 7 was based on a charge filed by Evelyn M Christy on April 6, 1982, alleging that on March 30, 1982, Kogy's, Inc (Respondent) discharged employee Sharon Fell because of Fell's alleged protected activity The complaint further alleges that on March 31, 1981, Respondent, in order to discourage protected ac- tivity, promulgated rules and penalties corresponding for the violations thereof, and that on the same date Re- spondent constructively discharged Christy and fellow employees Cathy Raymond, Laurie Clark, Jeannette Alvaro, and Kathleen Sutton Respondent denies the sub- stantive allegations of the complaint The parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to call, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce relevant evidence Posthearing briefs have been received from the General Counsel and Respond- ent On the entire record and based on my observation of the witnesses and in consideration of the briefs, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTION Respondent is a corporation organized under and exist- ing by virtue of the laws of the State of Michigan It has 204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD maintained its only office and place of business at 755 West Big Beaver, in Troy, Michigan, where it has been engaged in the business of operating a restaurant During the 12 months preceding the events of the complaint, which period is representative of its operations during all the times material, Respondent, in the course and con- duct of its business operations, had gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and purchased and caused to be trans- ported and delivered to its Troy place of business, alco- holic beverages and other goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 which goods and materials are trans- ported and delivered to said place of business in Troy, Michigan, and received from the Michigan Liquor Con- trol Commission, located in the State of Michigan, which had received the said goods and materials delivered to Respondent directly from points located outside the State of Michigan Respondent admits, and I find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act II THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Facts In April 1981, Carl Arenson, Frederick Bean, and his father purchased Kogy's Bean and his father had previ- ously been in the foundry business and they had no pre- vious experience in the ownership and management of a restaurant Arenson, on the other hand, had been associ- ated with and managed a restaurant for about 25 to 30 years For the first 8 months or so that Kogy's was in operation, Frederick Bean handled the administrative and financial aspects of the business, and Arenson man- aged the day-to-day operations About December 1981, the restaurant was suffering severe losses and Arenson had begun to have personal and emotional problems which affected his ability to manage the restaurant Arenson was frequently absent from his work and would frequently disappear In March 1982, Arenson's relation- ship with the restaurant was terminated by the Beans and Frederick Bean was forced to manage the restaurant at the same time he was learning how to manage the restau- rant On the morning of March 26, 1982, 1 Bean conducted a meeting of the restaurant employees to advise them of a change in management At the meeting Bean also ad- vised the employees that his door was always open and that he would meet with restaurant employees who had problems or concerns at any time or place During the afternoon of March 26, employees Evelyn Christy, Sharon Fell, and Cathy Raymond met with Bean in his office to express their concern about the way they were being treated by Hostess/Manager Trish Groat They told Bean that Groat used foul language, treated them without respect, threatened them at times with discharge for incomplete uniforms or improper hair style, and as- signed tables unfairly Bean responded that he was aware of the situation and had been and would continue to work with Groat to improve her management skills During the meeting, Bean received a telephone call from Groat who knew that the three employees were in 1 All events herein occurred in 1982 unless otherwise stated Bean's office She asked Bean who was in the office and Bean told her She then told Bean that Fell had not com- pleted her side work After the telephone call Bean ad- vised Fell that Groat had said that she and Jackie, an- other waitress, had not done their side work Fell replied that she had left a few tartar sauce cups uncovered in the refrigerator because customers were still in the restaurant and she thought they would be used Bean told her to go down and take care of it after the meeting 2 After the waitresses left Bean's office, Bean telephoned Groat and told her in reply to her question what the three waitresses wanted, that they had discussed with him the overall feelings about working on the floor, which involved Groat, but that they were not seeking her discharge and he did not undermine her authority Bean then went downstairs to the restaurant and found that Groat had already left, leaving her keys behind Bean was told by the other employees that Groat had stormed out in a huff He then telephoned Groat at home later that afternoon because he knew she was upset and angry She was crying when she answered the telephone She told Bean that she was never coming back, did not want to work there any longer, and was going to quit Groat also said she was upset because the girls had gone over her head Bean explained that they had not gone over her head, they were not seeking her discharge, and he would work out the problems with her He told her that due to his own inexperience he very much needed her to remain on the job She finally agreed to return on Monday Groat then told Bean that Fell did not com- plete her side work and she would have to be fired Bean told Groat that he would not fire anyone for something like that but would have Fell come in for a meeting on Monday, Fell's day off Bean decided to have a meeting with Fell and Groat in part to show Groat his support for her and to impress Fell, and have Fell pass the message along to other em- ployees, that Groat's orders were to be followed and that he was trying to establish a good relationship with the employees Bean telephoned Fell that night and told her to report for a meeting Monday, knowing it was Fell's day off After receiving the telephone call from Bean on Friday night, Fell called Groat at home and asked Groat what the meeting was going to be about Groat said that Fell should know how upset she was when they went upstairs to talk to Bean about her over her head and that they would be sorry Groat told Fell to spread the word that Bean had given her more authority and that she had quit but Bean had rehired her because he needed her and could always replace a waitress 3 On Monday, March 29, when Fell arrived for her meeting, a birthday celebration was underway for Laurie Clark at a table in the bar area and most of the day wait- 2 Fell's side work for that day consisted of wiping off the refrigerator which she had done, and covering the tartar sauces which she said she did as Instructed after leaving Bean's office 3 Bean testified that sometime before the Monday meeting, although he could not remember when or in what context the comments were made Groat told him that she did not want Fell fired over the side work inci dent and not to bother with the Monday meeting KOGY'S INC 205 resses were present Fell joined the group for a brief time and stated that she was there for a meeting with Bean and Groat and that she was nervous She then went to the office for the meeting According to Fell, Bean asked her what she had told him about doing her side work on Friday and she said she had told him that she had done it Fell asked if Bean intended to have a meeting with her partner Jackie for that evening who was also responsible along with Fell for doing the side work and Bean replied that he did not know anything about Jackie Bean then smiled and said they were going to start to work together and make things work He then said that the meeting was over Fell testified that she was relieved that she had not been fired and remarked, "You mean you called me in on my day off for this?" and smiled Bean smiled back and Fell left According to Bean, there was no discussion of what had been said on Friday about the side work and that at this meeting Fell indicated that she was not sure whether she had finished her side work or not Bean said that they would put that question aside, and that she was not being terminated and that she should not allow the situa- tion to happen again Fell asked if she could join the birthday celebration and Bean told her she could Bean testified that Fell said, "I can't believe you called me in just for this" Bean said he responded that he was glad she did come in and the meeting was over Bean further testified that after Fell left, Groat told Bean that he could have terminated Fell for that statement alone be- cause she showed him no respect Bean replied that it was okay because he had gotten his point across After the meeting with Bean and Groat, Fell rejoined the birthday celebration She told the others that the meeting had been about her side work and expressed relief that she had not been fired In response to a com- ment by Clark that Bean was their savior, Fell nodded in agreement Fell said that she probably made the com- ment that she could not believe that she was called in for that meeting as an expression of relief because she had anticipated more serious consequences 4 On the following day, Sharon Fell went back to work, and late that afternoon Groat told Bean that she had heard from another employee that at the birthday cele- bration, after the meeting with Fell, Fell told the others that she had made a fool of Bean and that he did not know anything about running a restaurant and called him an "ass hole" Bean testified that he decided to terminate Fell on the basis of those alleged comments Bean telephoned Fell at home that evening and in- formed her that she was terminated He told her that he did not appreciate her going down after the meeting and talking with her friends and being disrespectful about him Fell told Bean that she had not been disrespectful but Bean told her that he did not want to hear anything she had to say, that she was terminated and was not to come into the restaurant, and that he would mail her 4 Employee Dawn Omilion, who was called by Respondent as a wit ness and was present at the birthday celebration, was not, on direct exam illation, questioned on this point check 5 Later that night Bean received a telephone call from Groat wherein she told him that some of the em- ployees were up-in-arms about Fell's discharge Bean said there was nothing he could do at the time and that he would resolve it in the morning 6 The day-shift waitresses decided to meet at Big Boys' Restaurant, adjacent to Respondent's restaurant, before work on March 31, to discuss Fell's discharge and its impact on their own job security However, they did not discuss those issues because Christy had learned from Tom Allen, the night manager, that Dawn Omilion had reported the meeting to Groat and they did not want to talk in Omilion's presence Allen also advised Christy not to have the meeting because they could all be fired Bean learned of the Big Boys' meeting that morning and as- sumed it was to discuss Fell's discharge Bean noticed that some of the waitresses were not there as early as usual, although no one was late for work Either on Tuesday night after the telephone call from Groat or on Wednesday morning, Bean decided he would write out a set of rules and hold the meeting Wednesday morning to inform the staff that he was in charge and that this was how things would be 7 Bean did not hold a similar meeting for the night staff The rules as to drop time, no switching of late station, check- ing the side work, and discharge for the second instance of wearing an incomplete uniform were new Respond- ent's own witnesses admitted the other rules which had already existed in some form were not enforced and, on March 31, the rules were made stronger and tighter At the meeting on March 31 Bean was quite upset He said that it was his restaurant and he would run it his way and that these were the rules and there would be no discussion as there had always been in the past Bean said it had been his decision to fire Fell and there would be no discussion about it The witnesses for the General Counsel testified that Bean told the employees that they were not to meet or discuss restaurant matters in or out of work or they would be fired and if they did not like it they could leave Bean also stated that if he heard that any of his mandates were violated by any employee, the employee would be fired on the spot without discussion Respondent's employee witnesses testified that Bean told them not to discuss business matters inside the restaurant, or while customers were in the restaurant, during work- ing hours After the meeting, employees Christy, Alvaro, Sutton, Raymond, and Clark left because they felt they could not work under the conditions promulgated by Bean, most particularly, the rule against the discussion of business matters among themselves The rule prohibiting 5 Bean admitted he did not give Fell much of an opportunity to ex plain other than to make a general denial Bean also stated that he be lieved Groat and not Fell with respect to what was said and acted solely on the statement to him by Groat 6 Bean testified that on learning of the employees' reaction to Fell s discharge he felt very uncomfortable because now he had another prob lem to deal with and was feeling quite sensitive about his authority and control in the restaurant because of his lack of experience He said he felt insecure and out of control 7 Bean testified that it was a series of events which led him to write the rules and hold the meeting, but he admitted that the straw that broke the camel s back and led to the meeting to announce the rules was his learning that the employees were up In-arms about Fell s discharge 206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD trading of the late station was a hardship for those who could not stay late and those who wished to work extra hours for extra money. III. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS What we have here is a situation of Respondent's part- owner, president, and secretary-treasurer Frederick M. Bean being thrust into the position of managing the res- taurant on his own (without Arenson), even though he had no previous restaurant experience. He was forced to rely on Trish Groat who had much experience in the restaurant business with Bean's former partner, Kogy Arenson, but was a poor manager. Trish Groat was, ac- cording to the witnesses, a difficult person to work with. She was authoritative, vindictive, emotional, and crude.8 When Christy, Fell, and Raymond went up to Bean to complain about Groat, the day manager, after Bean had, in effect, invited all the employees to come up at any time, Trish Groat revealed her true nature by calling Bean during the meeting, asking who was present and complaining about Sharon Fell not having completed her side work. Conspicuously, she did not mention Jackie, the other employee who was also responsible with Fell for doing the side work on that shift. Groat immediately after the meeting and in a fit of anger left her keys and stormed out of the restaurant, quitting. When Bean learned of this, considering his insecurity, inexperience, and misplaced dependency on Groat, he was quite dis- turbed about it and called Groat to reassure her and to plead with her to come back to work because he could not get along without her. In a jesture of placating Groat he decided to call Fell in on Monday, her day off, to "straighten things out with her." Fell came in on her day off and, following the meeting at which Groat was present, Groat seized the opportuni- ty to get even with Fell for having "gone over her head" by telling Bean that Fell had been disrespectful toward him during that meeting and should be fired for saying she was called in, on her day off, for such a minor matter. Not succeeding then in getting Fell fired, on the next day Groat told Bean that Fell had made a fool out of him in the presence of other employees at the birthday party, and had referred to him in a disrespectful manner. (Groat was playing on Bean's insecurity and ex- pressed fear of running the restaurant by himself.) That evening Bean, solely on the basis of what Groat told him, phoned Fell and fired her on the spot without giving Fell an opportunity to say anything in her own defense. Thus, Bean acted on Groat's statement alone without investigating whether it was true that Fell had really made the remark Groat accused her of making. Bean, in effect, surrendered his authority to Groat who, through Bean, whom she was manipulating, fired Fell for engaging in concerted activity in complaining to Bean (over Groat's head) about working conditions. By such conduct, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. NLRB v. Burn up & Sims, 379 U.S. 21 (1964). 8 It is noted that Respondent did not call her to testify She was no longer in the employ of Respondent at the time of trial The Constructive Discharges of Cathy Raymond, Laurie Clark, Jeannette Alvaro, Cathy Sutton, and Evelyn M. Christy On the same evening that she was fired, Fell tele- phoned her fellow employees who, in turn, decided that they should meet for their own protection the following morning and discuss Fell's discharge. They met before work but did not discuss Fell's discharge because, ac- cording to the night manager, one of the employees who was to attend the meeting, Dawn Omilion, had informed Trish Groat of the planned meeting. Groat, in turn, in- formed Bean who then called a meeting of the employ- ees and announced new rules and more strict enforce- ment of old rules on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, thus caus- ing the constructive discharge of employees Cathy Ray- mond, Laurie Clark, Jeannette Alvaro, and Cathy Sutton. Frank Paxton Lumber Co., 235 NLRB 582 (1978); Big Three Industrial Gas Co., 230 NLRB 392 (1977). Bean's intention was to quash any further employee dis- cussion of his business policies and practices which he considered a challenge to his authority and control. The promulgation of the rules, therefore, on March 31, was a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The rules were instituted as a response to the employees' protected con- certed activity and were intended to resolve what Bean viewed as the problem that such activity caused. After the meeting in which the new rules were insti- tuted by Bean, five employees decided to terminate their employment. They did so because they could not work under the conditions laid down by Bean, particularly the prohibition against discussing work-related matters among themselves. Inasmuch as Bean repeatedly stated during the meeting that if they did not like the rules they could leave, it is reasonable to conclude that Bean in- tended and expected a few of the employees to leave after the meeting. The employees who left testified that the message they received from Bean was that he no longer wanted them there. Moreover, the fact that Bean had no meeting with the night staff revealed that the day-shift employees' protected activity was the catalyst for Bean's retaliatory conduct. By prohibiting the em- ployees from discussing Fell's discharge and other work- related matters, Bean conditioned the employees' contin- ued employment on their abandonment of their right to engage in conduct protected by Section 7 of the Act. Inasmuch as the employees were compelled to leave their jobs rather than relinquish their statutory rights, they were constructively discharged. Fidelity Telephone Co., 236 NLRB 166 (1978); Koerner Waldorf Corp., 227 NLRB 612 (1976). IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section II, above, occurring in connection with the operation de- scribed in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor dis- putes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. They are unfair labor practices KOGY'S INC 207 within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act 2 Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and co- erced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and committed unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the following (a) Discharging employee Sharon Fell because she and fellow employees engaged in the protected concerted ac- tivity of discussing wages, hours, and working conditions with Respondent and with one another (b) Promulgating new work rules and conditions of employment and discipline for failure to abide by them in order to discourage employees' protected concerted activity of discussing Respondent's conduct and policy as it related to wages, hours, and working conditions and employee discipline (c) Constructively discharging employees Cathy Ray- mond, Laurie Clark, Jeannette Alvaro, Cathy Sutton, and Evelyn M Christy because they engaged in concert- ed activity in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action to effectu- ate the policies of the Act, including the posting of ap- propriate notices The General Counsel has proven by a preponderance of the credible evidence that Respondent has engaged in all the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint Accordingly, I shall recommend that Respondent cease and desist from engaging in the conduct described in paragraphs 7 through 9 of the complaint or in any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of Section 7 rights and giving force to any of the new rules, procedures, or discipline described in paragraphs 8(a) and (b) of the complaint I shall also recommend that Respondent void the dis- charge given Sharon Fell, and remove from Respond- ent's files any reference to Fell's discharge or resigna- tions of employees Cathy Raymond, Laurie Clark, Jean- nette Alvaro, Cathy Sutton, and Evelyn M Christy, and make them whole for any loss of pay which they have suffered as a result of the interference with and restraint and coercion of its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act Backpay pro- vided herein with interest thereon is to be computed in the manner prescribed in F W Woolworth Co, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corp, 231 NLRB 651 (1977) [Recommended Order omitted from publication ]