A-1 Bus Lines

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1977

232 N.L.R.B. 665 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

A-i Bus Lines, Inc. and Zigmond S. Bogdan. Case
12-CA-7473
September 30, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND MURPHY
On July 5, 1977, Administrative Law Judge Jennie
M. Sarrica issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent and the
General Counsel filed exceptions and supporting
briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge, to modify her remedy,2 and to adopt her
recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, A-1 Bus Lines,
Inc., Miami, Florida, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said
recommended Order, except that the attached notice
is substituted for that of the Administrative Law
Judge.
I The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc.. 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing her findings.
2 In accordance with our decision in Florida Steel Corporation, 231
NLRB 651 (1977). we shall apply the current 7-percent rate for periods pnor
to August 25, 1977. in which the "adjusted prime interest rate" as used by
the Internal Revenue Service in calculating interest on tax payments was at
least 7 percent.
A-I BUS LINES
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all parties had the
opportunity to present their evidence, it has been
decided that we violated the National Labor Rela-
tions Act and we have been ordered by the National
Labor Relations Board to post this notice. We intend
to abide by the following:
The Act gives employees the following rights:
To organize themselves
To form, join, or help unions
To act together for collective bargaining,
or other mutual aid or protection
To bargain collectively through represen-
tatives of their own choosing
To refuse to do any or all of these things.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with you in the exercise of those rights. All our
employees are free to become or refuse to be
members of Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-
CIO-CLC, or any other union.
WE WILL NOT discharge employees because
they seek to obtain union representation, or
because they act together for their mutual aid or
protection.
WE WILL offer Zigmond Bogdan his old job
back, and make him whole for any loss of pay he
suffered, together with interest.
A-I Bus LINES, INC.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JENNIE M. SARRICA, Administrative Law Judge: This is a
proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. 151, et seq.),
hereinafter referred to as the Act. Based on charges filed on
November 12, 1976,1 a complaint was issued on December
16, presenting allegations that A-I Bus Lines, Inc.,
hereinafter referred to as Respondent, committed unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(3) and
(I) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Respondent filed an answer
denying that it committed the violations of the Act as
alleged. Upon due notice, the case was heard before me at
I All dates are in 1976 unless otherwise stated.
232 NLRB No. 102
665
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Coral Gables, Florida, on February 10, 1977. Representa-
tives of the parties entered appearances and had an
opportunity to participate in the proceeding, to introduce
evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
argue orally on the record. Oral argument by the parties is
included in the transcript of the hearing. Both parties
waived the right to file briefs.
Upon the basis of the pleadings, the evidence, and the
entire record including my observation of the demeanor of
the witnesses, and after due consideration of the arguments
presented, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that
Respondent, a Florida corporation, is engaged at Miami,
Florida, in the bus charter and sightseeing business. In the
course and conduct of its business, Respondent's gross
annual revenues are in excess of $50,000, and its annual
purchases of goods, supplies, and materials from suppliers
located within the State of Florida are in excess of $50,000
which goods, supplies, and materials were received by such
suppliers directly from places outside the State of Florida.
Respondent admits, and I find, that Respondent is now,
and has been at all times material herein, an employer
within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in
commerce and in operations affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that
Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, hereinafter
referred to as the Union, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES INVOLVED
A. Background
In late 1975, the Union engaged in a campaign to
organize Respondent's employees. Employee Bogdan
participated in this campaign on behalf of the Union, but
the nature and degree of this participation is not fully
developed in the record. Following a Board-conducted
election in December 1975, which the Union lost, the union
activity subsided but plans were formulated to resume the
activity at a time which would coincide with a new petition
for an election when such could be filed under Section 9 of
the Act. During this period of quiescence Zigmond Bogdan
from time to time spoke with a number of fellow employees
concerning the desirability of having the Union represent
2 Cases 12-CA 7080 and 12-A 7175 were heard before Administrative
Law Judge Julius Cohn on various dates in July and August. and no
exceptions to his Decision of December 8 were filed. In that Decision it was
found that Respondent discriminatorily refused to pay employees Bogdan
and White a Christmas bonus, and told those employees that this was
because their efforts to get a union in the plant had cost the Company
$4,000, and that when the Company got its money back, Bogdan and White
could get their bonus.
:1 Respondent claims it was informed by the Wage and Hour investigator
them, but he did not seek or obtain any signed authoriza-
tion card.
On March 29, a complaint against Respondent was
issued involving Bogdan and a fellow employee containing
allegations of violations of Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the
Act.2
Also in March, Bogdan and former fellow employee
Sykes went to the Wage and Hour Office with a complaint
that Respondent did not pay its drivers overtime for the
hours worked in excess of 40 a week as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act. While there Bogdan signed a
complaint.3 The Wage and Hour Division subsequently
conducted an investigation of Respondent's operations
and, on August 30, sent Respondent a report entitled
"Summary of Unpaid Wages," which revealed that a total
of $15,064.26 in unpaid wages, under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, was due 13 employees, including $922.16
owed Bogdan. Company President Chester E. Perpall
admitted that he received a copy of the "Summary" early
in September, and that at some unspecified time he
discussed the findings of the Wage and Hour Division with
Sykes, who was discharged by Respondent in the fall of
1975, but that he did not discuss it with Bogdan until the
events of November 9, as hereafter related.
B. The Supervisory Status of Storti
George J. Storti was employed as a dispatcher. Company
practice gave drivers preference in job assignments accord-
ing to seniority. Storti's duty was to maintain the
assignment board, where he posted the jobs for a given
date with the name of the specific driver assigned to each
trip. This he prepared by giving the "more desirable" runs
to the senior drivers. However, if a driver felt that his
assignment was not proper or if for personal reasons he
preferred another run, he could "bump" any driver with
less seniority from any job assignment that Storti had
made, provided he made his choice known by 3 p.m. of the
day prior to that on which the work was to be performed.
The maintainance of the assignment board, therefore, did
not involve the exercise of independent judgment and
discretion, but simply the performance of routine or
clerical tasks.
Bogdan testified, on the basis of hearsay, or on what he
regarded as "common knowledge" in the shop, that Storti
hired and fired and on occasions disciplined employees.
The basis for his "common knowledge" was not developed
in the record. The only testimony that Bogdan gave which
tended to show that Storti exercised supervisory authority
was his statement that he was hired initially in 1969, as a
temporary employee, by Storti, who arranged for his work
during the winter each year thereafter until 1973, when he
became a full-time employee. I find this testimony
insufficient to establish that Storti did anything more than
that it was Sykes who filed the complaint with the Wage and Hour Division
pursuant to which the division acted. In my view it is irrelevant whether
Sykes also filed a complaint. Bogdan's testimony that he signed a complaint
is uncontradicted, and I credit it. It is sufficient that in filing the complaint
Bogdan was acting for the benefit of himself and other drivers, and his
action in that regard constituted concerted activity protected by the Act.
Whether Bogdan's complaint had ment is immatenal. N.LR.B. v.
Washington Aluminum, 370 U.S. 9 (1962).
666
A-I BUS LINES
the routine tasks of taking Bogdan's application and later
informing him of the decision of higher management to
employ or reemploy him.
The burden of proving supervisory status rests on the
party alleging its existence. The Detroit Edison Company,
123 NLRB 225, 230 (1959); Riss and Company, Inc., 127
NLRB 1327, 1330 (1960). In this case the General Counsel
has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
Storti was vested with supervisory authority. Accordingly,
the allegations of the complaint, to the extent that they are
predicated on statements made by Storti,4 must be
dismissed.
C. The Discharge of Bogdan
November 9 was a nonworkday for Bogdan, but he went
to Respondent's premises arriving there about I p.m., and
parked his car facing an open but covered work area.
Perpall was not then present, and Bogdan spent some time
talking with Storti. About 1:30 p.m. Perpall and his wife
arrived and parked their automobile about 3 spaces nearer
the office from Bogdan's car. Mrs. Perpall (who regularly
works in the office) went into the building, and Perpall,
upon being told by Storti that Bogdan wished to talk with
him, joined the latter near Bogdan's car. Bogdan showed
Perpall some damage to the taillight on his car and
remarked that he hoped someone was not playing tricks on
him. Perpall remarked that he had the same damages on
his car and took Bogdan over to where it was parked and
4 Bogdan testified that early in November, in a telephone conversation
with Storti, he was told that Respondent's officials, including specifically
Perpall, were cussing him (Bogdan) because Bogdan was trying to start the
Union again. Bogdan told Storti that there was no secret about his activity,
that he had talked to a number of employees about the Union, that when it
could lawfully be done another petition would be filed, and that preliminary
thereto he intended to solicit the employees to sign authorization cards for
the Union. When Storti repeated his original statement to Bogdan, the latter
replied that he could not help what Perpall thought, that what he was doing
was his right, and within the law. Storti admitted that he frequently spoke
with Bogdan by telephone, but he denied making any statement of the
nature attributed to him by Bogdan.
I The letter dated October 19, and addressed to Bogdan, stated:
This refers to information you gave us regarding your employment
by the above-named firm (A-l Bus Lines). This letter is to inform you
of the results of our investigation of this firm and of your rights under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The investigation revealed that you were not paid as required by the
Act. It is estimated that S922.16 in back wages are due you for the
period from August 13, 1974, to June 2, 1976.
The firm was requested to pay the back wages but did not agree to
do so. Under our administrative procedure we are not authorized to
order or require an employer to pay back wages. Only a court can do
this.
In view of this situation, I would like to call your attention to the
independent right of any employee to bnng suit to recover back wages
due as explained on page 15 of the enclosed Handy Reference Guide.
Such suits may be brought in any federal or state court of competent
jurisdiction. The Department of Labor does not encourage or
discourage back wage suits. The decision is entirely up to the employee.
Most wage claims are subject to a two year [statute I of limitations
which means that any part of a claim which was earned more than two
years before suit is filed may not be collectible.
Sec. 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. 216(b)) provides in
substance that an employer who violates the minimum wage or overtime
provisions of the act shall be liable to his employees for the unpaid wages,
plus an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and reasonable
attorney's fees, but the right of an employee to bring or maintain such a suit
showed it to him. After some discussion which lasted only a
few minutes, Bogdan said he had something to show
Perpall, and the two returned to Bogdan's car, where the
latter got a letter he had received from the Wage and Hour
Division, and asked that Perpall read it. 5 Upon reading the
letter, Perpall told Bogdan that he did not care what
Bogdan did with the letter; that Everhart (the Wage and
Hour investigator) was all wrong; that he did not know the
law, but was learning; that up to that moment he did not
know who had started the matter, but now he knew it was
Bogdan. Then Perpall stated, "I've had it up to here with
you (raising his arm to his chin); I have men in my office
every day telling me you are trying to start the Union
again." Perpall then told Bogdan that he was fired, and to
get out or he would have him thrown out. At this point
Bogdan told Perpall that he was obviously angry, and that
he had best "cool off," but Perpall, in a loud voice,
reiterated his directive that Bogdan get out, adding, "I
don't like you anyway," and then turned and went inside
the office. Bogdan then collected his pay and left the
premises. 6
The same day that Bogdan was discharged, he filed an
application for unemployment compensation giving the
reason for his discharge as "Boss, Mr. Perpall said he didn't
like me because I participated in affairs involving Wage
and Hour Division." The application also indicated that
Bogdan's date of birth was August 17, 1912.7 A copy of the
application was sent to Respondent with a request that it
is suspended upon the filing by the Secretary of Labor for an injunction
under sec. 17 of the act. Sec. 16(c) authorizes the Secretary of Labor to
supervise the payment of unpaid minimum or overtime compensation owing
to any employee, and provides that the agreement of the employee to accept
such payment and the payment thereof shall constitute a waiver of the
employee's right to proceed under sec. 16(b). There has not been cited, nor
has my own search revealed any rule or regulation of the Secretary of Labor
defining when and under what circumstances the Secretary will take over
supervision of the payments of wages that may be due the employees under
the act, and when he will leave it to the employees to pursue their rights
under the act. So far as this record shows the only action by the Secretary of
Labor on Bogdan's complaint was to conduct an investigation and
thereafter to advise 13 employees that they were each due a specified sum of
money.
6 The foregoing is based on the credited testimony of Bogdan. Perpall
denied that he told Bogdan that he had not known who started the Wage
and Hour matter, but now knew it was he, or that men were telling him
Bogdan was trying to start the Union again. He admitted that on November
9 Bogdan gave him the letter from the Wage and Hour Division to read and
that upon doing so he told Bogdan that he did not agree with it, and that the
latter could do as he wished about it: that his conversation with Bogdan got
him "pretty imtated"; that he was getting mad; that he asked Bogdan.
"Why don't you get off my back"; that he told Bogdan. "I have it up to here
with you"; and that drivers were telling him everyday that Bogdan was "bad
mouthing" him and the Company. Perpall claims that he finally reached the
point that he told Bogdan he was in no condition to talk to him and wanted
him to leave the property; that when Bogdan replied that he would leave
when he got ready, he replied, "No, I want you to leave now"; and that
when Bogdan again said he would leave when he was ready, he told Bogdan.
"In that case you are fired," and went into the building. My consideration of
the entire record leads me to the conclusion that I cannot credit Perpall's
version of the events of November 9.
7 The application for employment which Bogdan filed with Respondent
at the time of initial hire in November 1969 gave his date of birth as August
17, 1917. Bogdan testified that when he obtained his original driver's license
in Florida, the state office made an error in his date of birth, and he has at
all times used the 1917 date for all matters connected with his driving.
Respondent relies on this birthdate discrepancy as justifying Bogdan's
discharge. The evidence is clear that Respondent was not aware of this until
(Continued)
667
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
give its reasons for Bogdan's discharge. The reply, signed
by Perpall, states:
Mr. Bogdan was discharged for insubordination by
refusing to leave the property when ordered to do so by
the President of the Company and making derogatory
remarks about the Company, its officials and other
employees of the Company.
Testifying on direct, Perpall stated there were a number
of reasons for Bogdan's discharge. Among the reasons
related were: Bogdan was always a minimal employee,
doing no more than was necessary; Bogdan was unable to
get along with other employees; Bogdan tried to keep other
employees from doing a good job; on an assignment
Bogdan refused to handle baggage any further than the
immediate area of the bus and required passengers to bring
their luggage to him; there were many complaints about
this and he had to take Bogdan off one job because of it;
Bogdan told other drivers they did not have to handle
baggage; Bogdan was a constant complainer and always
wanted to talk about it; during the Wage and Hour
investigation he discovered that Bogdan had padded his
timecards, but admitted that after talking to Bogdan, he
decided not to discharge the latter for that alleged
infraction; and he had been told by other drivers and
customers that Bogdan was running down the Company.
Perpall concluded this aspect of his testimony by saying
that he could relate other reasons for Bogdan's discharge
for a month because it has been a constant buildup of
nagging problems until the events of November 9, which
was the "final straw that broke the camel's back."
On cross-examination, Perpall testified that Bogdan had
always been a marginal employee; he had known for
"some years" that Bogdan could not get along with other
people; and has known that Bogdan was a chronic
complainer since shortly after he hired Bogdan. In this
connection it may be noted also that Respondent offered
no evidence whatsoever to corroborate Perpall's recitation
of numerous complaints from drivers and customers or
verification that Bogdan was "bad-mouthing" the Compa-
ny and its officers.
Contentions and Conclusions
With respect to whether Bogdan was discharged by
Perpall because he engaged in union and concerted activity
which the statute protects, my consideration of the entire
record convinces me, and I therefore find and conclude
that Perpall discharged Bogdan because, it had come to his
attention that Bogdan was renewing his efforts to obtain
union representation, and was responsible, at least in part,
for the investigation by the Wage and Hour Division. Not
only is there the credited testimony of Bogdan, but there is
it received a copy of the unemployment claim; hence it could not have been
a factor in Perpall's decision to discharge Bogdan.
8 Perpall's testimony that he could relate misdeeds by Bogdan for a
month indicates his propensity to exaggerate, and to seize upon anything,
whether actually related to the discharge or not, which he thinks might give
it an aura of legitimacy.
9 Par. 5(b) of the complaint alleges that on November 9 Perpall
threatened Bogdan with bodily harm if the latter failed to remove himself
from the premises, and par. 5(c) alleges that on the occasion referred to
the admission of Perpall that as a result of his discussion
with Bogdan he became "pretty irritated," and finally "got
mad" with Bogdan, and that the discussion with Bogdan
was "the straw that broke the camel's back." It is difficult
to understand what irritated Perpall and caused him to
become angry if it were not the letter from the Wage and
Hour Division, as that was the only thing of consequence
they discussed. Their discussion concerning the damage to
the taillights does not appear to have caused any expres-
sion of emotion on the part of either man.
The reasons assigned by Perpall to justify Bogdan's
discharge on November 9 simply do not withstand
scrutiny. Although Perpall claimed that Bogdan had
always been a marginal employee, could not get along with
his fellow employees, and was a chronic complainer, he
also claimed he has known this for Bogdan's entire period
of employment. Yet Bogdan was rehired repeatedly, at first
on a seasonal basis and when Bogdan was willing, as a
permanent employee, and Perpall never found such
conduct to warrant discharge; for that matter it does not
appear to have elicited even a reprimand. The claim that
Bogdan had padded timecards, Perpall admitted, was not
sufficiently meritorious to warrant discharge. Moreover, it
is not without significance that when the Bureau of
Unemployment Compensation asked Respondent for the
reason or reasons for the discharge, none of these factors
was assigned as justification for the discharge. The fact that
the reasons Respondent assigns for the discharge do not
withstand scrutiny is of itself evidence that the discharge
was discriminatorily motivated.8 As the Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit stated the principle in Shattuck Denn
Mining Corporation (Iron King Branch) v. N.LRB., 362
F.2d 466, 470 (1966):
If he [the trier of fact] finds that the stated motive for a
discharge is false, he can [certainly] infer that there is
another motive. More than that, he can infer that the
motive is one that the employer desires to conceal-an
unlawful motive-at least where, as in this case, the
surrounding facts tend to reinforce that inference.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated, I find and conclude
that by discharging Bogdan, Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.9
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and the entire
record in the case, I state the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
i. Respondent A-I Bus Lines, Inc., 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.
Perpall created the impression of surveillance by telling Bogdan that he had
been informed that the latter was trying to start the Union again. I
recommend that both allegations be dismissed. The evidence falls short of
proving that Perpall threatened Bogdan with bodily harm. Bogdan's
testimony. which I have credited, was that Perpall stated that he had been
told by other employees who came to his office that Bogdan was trying to
start the Union again. In my view Bogdan could not reasonably interpret
what Perpall said as indicative that Perpall had Bogdan's union activity, or
the union activity of any other employee, under surveillance.
668
A-I BUS LINES
2. Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. By discharging Bogdan because he engaged in
concerted activity for mutual aid or protection, Respon-
dent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of rights protected by Section 7 of the Act,
and thereby engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor
practices proscribed by Section 8(aX 1) of the Act.
4. By discharging Bogdan because he assisted and
supported the Union, Respondent discriminated against
him in regard to his wages, hours, and terms and
conditions of his employment to discourage membership in
the Union, thereby violating Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in, and is
engaging in, unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, it
will be recommended that it be required to cease and desist
therefrom and to take the affirmative action set forth
below, designed and found necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
Having concluded that Respondent interfered with,
restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, by discriminating
against Zigmond Bogdan with respect to his tenure of
employment because he engaged in concerted and protect-
ed activities, and having concluded that such unlawful
conduct permeates the very purpose and policy of the Act,
I shall recommend that Respondent be required to cease
and desist from in any other manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of
their Section 7 rights. N.LR.B. v. Entwistle Manufacturing
Company, 120 F.2d 532 (C.A. 4, 1941); California Lingerie,
Inc., 129 NLRB 912 (1960).
Having found that Respondent unlawfully discharged
Zigmond Bogdan on November 9, 1976, I shall recommend
that Respondent be required to offer him immediate, full,
and unconditional reinstatement 0 to his former position
or, if such position no longer exists, to a substantially
equivalent one, without prejudice to any seniority or other
rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and to make him
whole for any loss of earnings suffered as a result of the
discrimination against him, by payment to him of a sum of
money equal to that which normally he would have earned,
absent the unlawful discharge, with backpay and interest
computed under the established standards of the Board, in
accordance with the formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth
'0 Nothing herein shall be construed as preventing the application of
established employment policies, such as a retirement plan, administered in
the normal course of business and in a manner free from discnmination
under the Act.
" In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations. be adopted by the Board and become
Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following
recommended:
ORDER"
The Respondent, A-1 Bus Lines, Inc., Miami, Florida,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Amalgamated Transit
Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, or any other labor organization of
its employees, by discharging or otherwise discriminating
in regard to the hire or tenure of employment or any other
term or condition thereof.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, 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 and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed and
found necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Zigmond Bogdan immediate, full, and uncondi-
tional reinstatement to his former position or, if that
position no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent one,
without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed, and make him whole for any
loss of earnings suffered, in the manner indicated in the
section hereof entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to
authorized agents of the National Labor Relations Board,
for examination and copying, all payroll records, social
security payment records, timecards, personnel records and
reports, and all other records necessary or useful in
determining compliance with this Order, or in computing
the amount of backpay due as herein provided.
(c) Post at its establishment in Miami, Florida, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 12 Copies of said
notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 12, after being signed by an authorized representa-
tive, shall be posted as herein provided immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be so maintained for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by it to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(d) Notify the aforesaid Regional Director, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has
taken to comply herewith.
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
I2 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 b.
Order of the National 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."
669