Fotomat Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 16, 1970

181 N.L.R.B. 700 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

700 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Fotofab Corporation , a subsidiary of Fotomat
Corporation and Adele Begley and Carl E.
Pittman . Cases 9-CA-5208-1 and 9-CA-5208-2
March 16, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On November 28, 1969, Trial Examiner James
M. Fitzpatrick issued his Decision in the
above-entitled proceeding, as amended by an
erraturm issued on December I, 1969, finding that
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
certain unfair labor practices as alleged in the
complaint and recommending that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision and Erraturm Thereafter, Respondent
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision
and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with these cases to a
three-member panel
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and
the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts
the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
orders that Respondent, Fotofab Corporation, A
subsidiary of Fotomat Corporation, Sharonville,
Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order
The Respondent excepted to the Trial Examiner ' s inference , in fn 12 of
his Decision , that had the Addisons testified they would not have supported
the position of Respondent We find merit in this exception As the
Respondent chose not to go forward with its case in reliance on its
contention that the General Counsel had failed to establish a prima facie
case, no such inference may be drawn Brown & Root-Northrop, 177
NLRB No I, fn I
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES M FITZPATRICK, Trial Examiner: These
proceedings under Section 10(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended (the Act), originated with
181 NLRB No. 105
charges filed June 4, 1969,' by two individuals, Adele
Begley and Carl E Pittman On July 25 the two matters
were consolidated and a consolidated complaint issued
alleging that Fotofab Corporation, a subsidiary of
Fotomat Corporation (herein called Respondent or
Company) had violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by
discharging and thereafter refusing to reinstate Begley and
Pittman because of their union activities, and Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by telling an employee that other
employees active in organizing the Union had been
discharged Respondent filed an answer denying it had
committed unfair labor practices The consolidated
matters were tried before me in Cincinnati, Ohio, on
September 22. At the conclusion of the General Counsel's
case in chief Respondent elected to rest
Upon the entire record, my observation of the witnesses
and consideration of the briefs of the General Counsel and
Respondent, I make the following
Findings of Fact and Conclusions
I THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Respondent, an Ohio corporation, manufactures
prefabricated buildings at Sharonville, Ohio In the year
preceding the issuance of the complaint it received at its
plant at Sharonville from points outside Ohio goods and
materials valued at over $50,000, and shipped from its
plant to points outside Ohio goods and products valued at
over $50,000 I find that it is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
11. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Background
The company began operation at its Sharonville plant
in July 1968 It hired Pittman on July 15, 1968, as a
laborer On August 5, 1968, he was given a merit increase
in pay and transferred to the paint department On
September 2, 1968, after less than a month on that job he
was promoted to stationhead (leadman) of the paint job
and given another raise, and on the 30th of that month he
was again reclassified to a spray painter and given still
another raise. This was followed on October 7, 1968 by
another automatic wage increase However 2 days later he
was given a written notice of deficiency for excessive
absenteeism and tardiness,' and again at the end of the
month was given another written reprimand for being 19
minutes late in returning from lunch on October 26' In
spite of these warnings he was on November 18, 1968,
given another automatic wage increase
Begley was hired August 5, 1968, as an assembler.
Thereafter she received an automatic wage increase on
September 2, 1968, was reclassified and given an
additional raise on September 30, 1968, and on the
following October 7 was promoted to stationhead
(leadlady) and given a merit wage increase as well as an
automatic wage increase On the following November 18
All dates referred to herein are in 1969 unless otherwise indicated
'The notice ended with a general warning "that additional offenses of
this manner will require remedial action on the part of Fotofab
management "
'The time missed was deducted from his pay The reprimand warned
that "If this happens again, there will be other action taken " Apparently
Begley and II others were also late but the record does not reveal if they
were reprimanded
FOTOFAB CORPORATION 701
she was given a further automatic wage increase.
Throughout her employment with Respondent Begley was
in all regards considered a satisfactory employee.
Beginning in September 1968 United Auto Workers
(UAW)' engaged in organizing activity by distributing
union literature and authorization cards to Fotofab
employees outside the plant About a week after this
organizing began R T Tidball, general manager of the
plant, talked with Begley at her work station and in the
course of the conversation spoke disparagingly of the
persons engaged in the organizing . According to Begley,
"he said he would never have a union in the plant, that he
would close it before he would have it" and "he said they
had closed their plant some place else for trying to
organize a union " Apparently UAW was unsuccessful in
its organizing
In December and January because of a reduction in
business the company cut back operations considerably
On December 13, 1968, it laid off 28 employees thus
eliminating one entire shift, and on January 10, 1969 it
laid off another 41 employees This left only about 18
employees at the plant. On the night of January 10 a fire
at the plant inflicted considerable damage Following the
fire, and apparently continuing to at least about the time
of the termination of Begley and Pittman on March 4,
there was little or no production at the plant The
complement of 18 employees remaining after the second
layoff on January 10, augmented by some additional
employees who were recalled from layoff, worked at
cleaning up the damage caused by the fire. By early
March between 25 and 30 employees were working
Begley and Pittman survived both the first and the
second layoffs. From January 23 until February 24 when
she returned to work, Begley was off for medical reasons.
But through the mid part of February, although she had
not returned to work, she visited the plant frequently for
social reasons and on some of these occasions assistant
production foreman Roger Rothschild urged her to return
to work, indicating that her services were needed As to
Pittman who continued to work without interruption,
Rothschild on February 24 warned him verbally about
unauthorized absences and recommended to general
manager Tidball that some action, without specifying
what, be taken. Following this warning Pittman was not
thereafter absent or tardy
half from the plant This meeting was attended by a
substantial number of the company's employees, the
attendance being variously estimated at from 15 to 25.
During the meeting both Begley and Pittman spoke in
support of the Union. The meeting was also addressed by
Charles R Davis, president of the Local who told the
group that the Union intended to present the
authorization cards to the company and to request
recognition on Monday, March 10, following his return
from a trip out of town
C Termination of Begley and Pittman
On March 3 or March 4, the record is not clear which,
assistant general manager Tom Addison, Sr , directed
Rothschild to make an evaluation of all company
employees and report to him." Rothschild made the
evaluation on that same day and reported his findings
verbally to Addison, Sr He had never before been
directed to make such a survey and report Although both
Begley and Pittman were good workers, he reported that
Begley lacked the versatility of some of the other
employees in that they all could do her job as well as their
own but she could not do theirs, and in the situation that
the plant was then in it was essential that each employee
be able to perform every Job' As to Pittman he reported
that his record in tardiness and absenteeism had not been
good Rothschild also testified that at the time he made
the evaluation and report he did not know that either was
engaged in union activity
At the end of the workday on Tuesday March 4
without prior notice both Begley and Pittman were
terminated by Addison, Sr. He told Begley that she was
laid off, that she would be recalled in a month or so, that
she could draw unemployment compensation, that she
would get severance pay, and that "your work had been
perfect "8 He out and out discharged Pittman, telling him
that the plant was not producing anything and not
shipping anything, that Pittman had missed quite a few
days, and that although he hated to see anyone lose their
job, sometimes such things could not be helped.' Jones,
who had done the most soliciting in the plant, was not
discharged.
D The Strike
B. IBEW Organizing
Both Begley and Pittman had social contacts with
officials in Local 1198, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,' (herein called IBEW or
the Union ) On about February 27 or 28 they obtained a
supply of blank authorization cards from the Union for
distribution among the employees . Begley gave most of
these to another employee, Elwood Jones who with Begley
and Pittman headed up the organizing effort Jones
circulated the cards among the employees and after
obtaining signatures returned them to Begley She and
Pittman personally solicited only a few employees to sign
cards . The record indicates that all of this organizing
activity among their fellow employees occurred in the
plant on March 3 during break periods and lunch period
They tried to keep the organizing secret. The signed cards
were all returned to Begley and delivered by her to the
Union that same evening after work at a meeting of the
employees in the union hall located about a mile and a
'UAW is a labor organization within Sec 2(5) of the Act
Begley aild Pittman immediately reported their
terminations to the Union and it was decided to set up a
picket line at the plant on the following morning, March
5. Accordingly, on the next morning Begley, Pittman, and
officials of the Union appeared at the plant entrance at
the time the employees came in for work and picketed
with signs reading "Local 1198 on strike-Unfair labor
'A labor organization within the meaning of Sec 2 (5) of the Act
'Rothschild testified that this occurred on either March 3 or 4 and that
it could have been either day He also testified he believed that the day
after he made the evaluation Begley and Pittman were terminated The
record is clear that they were terminated on March 4
'Just why universal versatility among the employees would be essential is
not apparent
'The company 's written record of Begley's termination , signed by general
manager Tidball , indicates that she was "laid off," she was " terminated
with severance pay," and that she was "re-employable ," but shows nothing
specific as to her qualities as an employee
'The company's written record of Pittman ' s termination , also signed by
Tidball, indicates that he too was "laid off," that unlike Begley he was
terminated without severance pay, that he was not re-employable, and
carries the remark "excessive late[nessl and absentism (sic)"
702 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
practices " The employees all honored the picket line The
strike and picketing had a twofold purpose To protest the
termination of Begley and Pittman, and, secondly, to
obtain immediate recognition of the Union In line with
this second objective, and instead of waiting until March
10 to seek recognition from the company, the union
representatives on the picket line on March 5 presented
themselves immediately to plant manager Tidball and
requested recognition from the company. He put them off
by saying he would have to consult the company
attorneys After waiting some two hours, the union
representatives left without obtaining recognition That
same day (March 5) the company filed a petition seeking
a Board election ."' In the meantime the strike and the
picketing continued until March 7 when Tidball came out
to the picket line and requested the employees to return to
work in view of the fact that the company had petitioned
for an election in which they would have an opportunity
to vote for or against the Union Tidball was then asked
about the status of Begley and Pittman and he replied
unequivocally that they were both fired. In an informal
vote the employees then decided to return to work, and
did so"
A Board election was held in due course on March 31
The Union won and subsequently entered into contract
negotiations with the company
E The Addison Statement
James Findley was employed by the company from
sometime in the autumn of 1968 until about the first of
December 1968 when he quit He again sought
employment with the company in April 1969 On that
occasion while waiting to be interviewed in the plant office
he conversed casually with Tom Addison, Jr , a
rank-and-file employee and the son of assistant general
manager Tom Addison, Sr. Findley and young Addison,
were acquainted from the time of Findley's earlier
employment. Findley asked him about the Union In reply
young Addison said that they had gotten rid of the
ringleaders, Begley and Pittman At about that point
Addison, Sr , came into the room Findley asked young
Addison what he meant by his comment and young
Addison replied "We fired them " At that point Addison,
Sr., chimed in "Yeah, I sure did," and laughed
Respondent attacks Findley's credibility on two
grounds On cross-examination he admitted that in 1962
or 1963 he had been convicted of burglary, had been
sentenced to a term of from I to 15 years in the Ohio
house of corrections of which he had served 4 years before
being released on parole A year or two prior to the
burglary conviction he had been convicted of being a
passenger in a stolen automobile for which he was
sentenced to 5 years' probation Respondent's second
attack on Findley's credibility is based on his marital
status As to this Findley testified that he had been living
with his common law wife since Labor Day 1968 and was
still living with her in April 1968 when he applied at the
plant for reemployment Two days after he was
interviewed for reemployment he filled out a company
personnel application on which he indicated that he was
single On cross-examination Findley testified that he
filled out the application in that manner because he
thought he was "single according to law," a status
different from his common law relationship Inasmuch as
none of the counsel at the hearing were then able to
enlighten the record regarding Findley's marital status
under Ohio law, I am not prepared to hold him to a
higher standard of legal knowledge. It seems to me his
explanation as to why he filled out the application in the
manner in which he did was a perfectly reasonable
explanation for a layman. His testimony and demeanor
did not suggest any inclination on his part to cover up his
relationship with his "common law wife " As to both
grounds for attacking his credibility, while I think they
are worthy of consideration I am more impressed with the
demeanor of Findley as a witness. His testimony seemed
particularly straightforward and responsive to the
questions put to him. Moreover, at the time of the hearing
he was a disinterested witness being then a self-employed
freelance artist enjoying some considerable success in his
field Finally, his testimony was uncontradicted 11 Bearing
in mind these various considerations, I credit Findley and
find that at the time he reapplied for employment with the
company in April the two Addisons, Jr and Sr , made the
comments which he attributed to them
F Discussion
The complaint alleges, and Respondent admits, that on
March 4 it discharged Begley and Pittman and since then
has refused to reinstate them The complaint also alleges,
but respondent denies, that they were discharged because
of their union activities The complaint further alleges, but
respondent denies, that at a later point, namely April 11,
Respondent restrained and coerced its employees in the
exercise of their Section 7 rights when assistant general
manager Tom Addison, Sr , told an employee that he had
discharged employees who were active in organizing for
the Union
The only evidence in the record relating to this
allegation of later conduct is the testimony of James
Findley As noted above I credit his uncontradicted
testimony This evidence establishes that some time in
April, the exact date being unclear, Tom Addison, Jr , an
employee, stated to Findley, an applicant for employment
that they had gotten rid of union leaders Begley and
Pittman and that they had been fired If attributable to
respondent such a statement was an interference with
Section 7 rights within the meaning of Section 8(a)(I) of
the Act because it indicated to an applicant for
employment that Respondent had discharged the two
employees because they were leaders in the Union." The
General Counsel contends, and I agree, that when Tom
Addison, Sr , the assistant general manager who
discharged both Begley and Pittman, overheard this
remark of his son, he adopted it by saying, "Yeah, I sure
did " The conduct of Addison, Sr , is of course
attributable to Respondent, and accordingly I conclude
"The parties herein stipulated that on March 5 the company filed a
petition for an election in Case 9-RM - 553 and that on March 12 the
company and the Union entered into a stipulation for certification upon
consent election providing for a Board election in a production and
maintenance unit at the plant
"The record indicates that at some later time further strike action
occurred However it does not appear that such was in any way related to
the issues presented here
"Neither of the Addisons was called to testify nor was the failure to call
them explained I infer that had they testified they would not have
supported the position of respondent as indicated in its answer to the
complaint Brewton Fashions , Inc , 145 NLRB 99, 124 , In 77, enfd 361
F 2d 8 (C A 5), N L R B v A P W Products Co, 316 F 2d 899 , 903-904
(C A 2)
"Chemrock Corporation , 151 NLRB 1074, 1077, Mid-South
Manufacturing Company. Inc, 120 NLRB 230, 231
FOTOFAB CORPORATION 703
that when he adopted his son's remarks made to Findley
and added his own comment, Respondent committed an
unfair labor practice in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act
As to Respondent's reasons for discharging Begley and
Pittman, the April statements of Addison, Jr to Findley,
adopted by Addison, Sr , and Addison, Sr 's own
comment indicate union animus was involved in the
firings, particularly since Addison, Sr , was the
managerial official who actually discharged them The
General Counsel's contention that the company harbored
union animus is further corroborated by general manager
Tidball's statement to Begley in September 1968 in
connection with the UAW organizing to the effect that he
would never have a union in the plant, that he would close
the plant first, and that they had closed plants elsewhere
Respondent contends that there is no evidence that the
company had knowledge of the union activities of Begley
and Pittman and, therefore, their discharges could not
have been because of their union activities The General
Counsel urges that such knowledge may be inferred from
the circumstances The evidence shows that Begley,
Pittman, and Jones were the three most active employees
in organizing on behalf of IBEW With the exception of
one card solicted at a union meeting, all solicitation of
employee signatures on IBEW cards was carried on in the
plant on March 3, most of it by Jones, but some also by
Begley and Pittman who had brought the cards into the
plant As of March 3 the total complement of employees
consisted only of from 25 to 30 employees
Additional factors which support the General Counsel's
theory are that since the second layoff and the lire on
January 10 the company had taken on (or recalled)
additional employees including Begley who Rothschild had
on several occasions asked to return to work Also I note
that the timing of the discharges in mid-week" on
Tuesday, March 4, one day after the solicitation in the
plant on behalf of IBEW and the union meeting after
work when the union president declared to all assembled
his intention of demanding recognition from the company
on March 10 after his return from a trip Although I
think the evidence is insufficient to establish that the
company knew of this particular union declaration, the
precipitated discharges of Begley and Pittman the next
day look suspicious and lend color to the allegation that
they were discriminatory in motive In these circumstances
company knowledge of the union activity may be inferred
N L R B v. Abbott Worsted Mills, Inc. 127 F 2d 438,
440 (C A. 1), The Circle K Corporation, 173 NLRB No
107; Mid States Sportswear, Inc, 168 NLRB No 74,
enfd 412 F 2d 537 (C A 5) Some inference of company
knowledge may also be drawn from the fact that Addison,
Jr , son of the assistant plant manager who discharged
Begley and Pittman, worked in the plant as a
rank-and-file employee See Mock Road Super Duper,
Inc , 156 NLRB 983, 984 However, since this record does
not specifically establish that Addison, Jr , in fact was in
the plant on March 3 or 4, 1 do not rely solely on that
circumstance I find that at the time they were discharged
the company knew that Begley and Pittman were involved
in organizing in behalf of IBEW
The reasons given by the company for the discharges
were that Begley was not as versatile as other employees
and that Pittman had an inadequate record respecting
"The company workweek ended on Sunday
absenteeism and tardiness Rothschild testified that his
survey indicated these facts about each employee and
nothing in the record indicates the contrary It is also true
that in general they were valued employees as shown by
the numerous wage raises each received and by their
promotions to "station head " Yet they were the only two
who were eliminated as a result of the survey And the
record is barren of any evidence showing that on March 4
there was any need based on economics or plant efficiency
for a reduction in force In fact the additions to the staff
since January 10, including the return to duty of Begley,
argue to the contrary And while it may have been
desirable to have maximum versatility on the part of all
employees, a quality not possessed by Begley, there does
not appear on this record to have been any overriding
need for universal versatility of employees As to
absenteeism and tardiness, there may well have been a
continuing need to keep these at a minimum and surely
Pittman had in the past at times been derelict in these
regards But this does not adequately explain why he was
suddenly discharged on March 4 when he had survived for
months since his written reprimands in October 1968, had
only received a verbal warning from Rothschild on
February 24, thereafter had been neither tardy nor absent,
and had never been specifically warned that he risked
dismissal
Balancing these various considerations i, find that a
preponderance of the evidence establishes that both Begley
and Pittman were discharged because of their union
activities While I think that the company's alleged
reasons for the discharges based upon Rothschild's survey
have some persuasiveness, in the light of the timing of the
discharges, the fact that they were both union leaders, and
the union animus of the company, these reasons are
insubstantial Respondent has further argued that Begley's
and Pittman's delay in filing the charges until June 4
shows lack of faith in their own cases Such an argument
has no merit The time when the charges were filed, so
long as it satisfied the requirements of Section 10(b) of
the Act, is wholly irrelevant to a consideration of the
merits of the unfair labor practice allegations But in any
case, the delay in filing the charges is adequately
explained by the fact that the president of the IBEW
Local erroneously advised them to do so because of the
pending election and thereafter challenges to the election
Based on the above I conclude that respondent's
discharge of both Begley and Pittman on March 4 and its
failure thereafter to reinstate them were unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act,
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act
III THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
Those activities of respondent found to be unlawful, as
set forth in section 11, above, occurring in connection with
its operations described in section 1, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
.the free flow of commerce
IV THE REMEDY
Having found that respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(I) and (3) of the Act,
I recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take
704 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act, including that it, offer Begley and
Pittman immediate , full, and unconditional reinstatement
to their former or substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority and other rights,
privileges , or working conditions, and make them whole
for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the
discrimination against them by paying each a sum of
money equal to the amount he or she would have earned
from the date of the discrimination to the date respondent
offers reinstatement , less net earnings during that period
in accordance with the Board's formula stated in F W
Woolworth Company , 90 NLRB 289, with interest
thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum as set forth in
Isis Plumbing & Heating Co , 138 NLRB 716, and that it
make records available to Board agents in connection with
compliance therewith, and post appropriate notices ,
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and the entire record , and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Fotofab Corporation, a subsidiary of Fotomat
Corporation, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
I Cease and desist from
(a) Discouraging membership in Local 1198,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organizations, by
discriminatorily discharging, refusing to reinstate, or in
any other manner discriminating against any employee in
regard to hire, tenure or other term or condition of
employment
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any or all such activities
2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate
the policies of the Act
(a) Offer to Adele Begley and Carl E Pittman
immediate, full, and unconditional reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights, privileges, or
working conditions, and make each whole for any loss of
earnings he or she may have sulfered, in the manner set
forth in the section hereto entitled "The Remedy "
(b) Notify Adele Begley and Carl E Pittman if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of their right to full reinstatement upon application
in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended,
after discharge from the Armed Forces
(c) Preserve and on request make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying all
payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and other
records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Recommended Order
(d) Post at its plant at Sharonville, Ohio copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix "i 5 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 9, after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by
respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith 16
"In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions , recommendations , and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions , and order, and
all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event
that the Board ' s Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States Court
of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board " shall be changed to read "posted
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing
an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations
Board an agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT fire or otherwise discriminate against
any employee because he or she joins, assists, or
supports a union
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
their right to self-organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any or all such activities
WE WILL offer Adele Begley and Carl E Pittman
their old jobs back, with full seniority, and we will
make up the pay they lost, together with 6 percent
interest
WE WILL notify Adele Begley and Carl E Pittman if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of their right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service Act
and Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces
FOTOFAB CORPORATION,
A SUBSIDIARY OF
FOTOMAT CORPORATION
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office,
Room 2407, Federal Office Building, 550 Main Street,
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, Telephone 513-684-3686