Dorsey Laboratory, Division Of Sandoz, Inc

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 18, 1978

239 N.L.R.B. 857 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

DORSEY LABORATORY, DIVISION OF SANDOZ, INC.
Dorsey Laboratory, Division of Sandoz, Inc. and Re-
tail & Professional Employees Union, Local 1015,
Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO.
Case 17-CA-7859
December 18, 1978
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS PENELtO
AND TRUESDALE
On September 6, 1978, Administrative Law Judge
Michael O. Miller issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel and
Respondent filed exceptions and supporting briefs.
Respondent also filed an answering brief to the ex-
ceptions and brief of the General Counsel.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified
below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Dor-
sey Laboratory, Division of Sandoz, Inc., Lincoln,
Nebraska, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall take the action set forth in the said rec-
ommended Order, as so modified:
Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a):
"(a) Post at its Lincoln, Nebraska, plant copies of
the attached notice marked 'Appendix.' Copies of
Respondent has excepted to certain credibilits findings made h, the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to over-
rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credlbilitl
unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence .onsinces us
that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Drn $all Produla. Inc, 91
NLRB 544 (1950). enfd. 188 F2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951) We hase carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings
2 Respondent has excepted to the provision in the recommended Order
which would require it to mail copies of the notice to all temporar) emplou-
ees terminated pursuant to the 12-month tenure rule instituted bh Respon-
dent on August 15. 1977 Since the Administrative Law Judge has found.
and we agree. that Respondent did not violate the Act when it adopted the
rule in question, we agree with Respondent that there is no justification for
requinng the mailing of notices to employees whose temrporars emplosment
status has been terminated pursuant to that rule We shall therefore modifs,
the recommended Order by deleting the mailing requirement from par 2ia)
therein.
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Di-
rector for Region 17. after being duly signed by Re-
spondent's representative shall be posted immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employ-
ees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other mate-
rial."
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MICHAEt. O MILLER. Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard on March 14, 15, and 16, 1978, at Lincoln,
Nebraska, upon a charge filed by the Retail & Professional
Employees Union. Local 1015, Retail Clerks International
Association. AFL-CIO, herein the Union, on August 29,
1977, as thereafter amended, and a complaint issued by the
Regional Director for Region 17 of the National Labor
Relations Board on October 26, 1977.' The complaint, as
amended at hearing, alleges that Dorsey Laboratory, Divi-
sion of Sandoz, Inc., herein Respondent, violated Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, by interrogating an employee
concerning the union activities and sympathies of another
employee, conditioning employment upon rejection of the
Union, and by discharging employees because of their
union activities. Respondent, by its timely filed answer, de-
nied the commission of any unfair labor practices.
All parties were given full opportunity to participate, to
introduce relevant evidence, to examine and to cross-exam-
ine witnesses, and to argue orally. Briefs were filed by the
General Counsel and the Respondent.
Upon the entire record, including my careful observa-
tion of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the fol-
lowing:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS AND THE UNION'S LABOR
ORGANIZATION STATUS
Respondent is a Delaware corporation engaged at Lin-
coln, Nebraska, in the manufacture, sale, and distribution
of pharmaceutical products. Jurisdiction is not in issue.
The complaint alleged. Respondent admitted, and I find
that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
The complaint alleged, Respondent admitted, and I find
that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
All dates hereinafter are 1977. unless otherwise specified.
857
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Employment Situation
Respondent's principal products are cough and cold
remedies. Because of the seasonal nature of the demand for
these products, limitations on their shelf life, and problems
caused by the availability of materials and supplies, pro-
duction is highly cyclical. In order to accommodate the
cyclical nature of its business, Respondent utilizes a slb-
stantial number of temporary employees in addition to its
regular corps of permanent employees.
While the temporary employees may work in various de-
partments, the majority of them are employed in the pack-
aging department. During 1977, Respondent employed 83
to 88 permanent, and between 20 and 70 temporary, em-
ployees in that department. The permanent and temporary
employees work side by side and perform the same work
on the same packaging lines. They are supervised by the
same foremen. As a general rule however, the temporary
employees are employed only as packaging workers and do
not hold the more responsible position of packaging (ma-
chine) operators.
The work in Respondent's packaging department is es-
sentially simple and repetitive. New employees receive
some information concerning the job when hired in the
personnel department. They receive further orientation,
lasting from I to 1-1/2 hours, from the packaging manager
and packaging foreman. Actual on-the-job training is then
given, either by the foreman or by pairing the new employ-
ee with an experienced permanent employee. To train an
employee to actually work at an initial position, takes from
10 minutes to I hour. In order to alleviate the boredom
stemming from the repetitive nature of the work, employ-
ees are rotated to different positions on the line every hour
or two and change lines weekly.
Permanent employees receive a full panoply of employ-
ment benefits with steady, layoff free, employment. Those
classified as temporary, however, have no job security, re-
ceive few benefits, and only the minimum wage for their
job classifications with no expectations of wage increases.
They are subject to repeated layoff and recall. Because of
its desire to limit the costs of its operations, and pursuant
to corporate directives placing a ceiling on the number of
permanent employees, Respondent does not offer much
opportunity for temporary employees to become perma-
nent. They may bid on such jobs when attrition makes
them available, but they have no right to the acquisition of
permanent status. Prior to August 15, some of Respon-
dent's temporary employees had held their temporary posi-
tions for a number of years.
B. The Union Activity
Union organizational activity began with handbilling
outside Respondent's plant in May 1977. Thereafter, a
number of organizational meetings were held through the
summer. Respondent was aware of the campaign from the
outset. No evidence was adduced that the campaign was
centered upon the termporary employees or that those em-
ployees were any more or less active in the Union's behalf
than any other employees.
On August 1, the Union filed a petition for a representa-
tion election, Case 17-RC-8346, seeking to represent a unit
of Respondent's production, maintenance, packaging and
shipping department employees. At the hearing held on
that petition on August 24, Respondent asserted the posi-
tion that temporary employees should be excluded from
the appropriate bargaining unit because they lacked a suf-
ficient community of interest with the permanent employ-
ees. The Union withdrew its petition on October 20.
C. Response to the Organizational Activity
Following the filing of the representation petition, Re-
spondent conducted meetings with its supervisors, includ-
ing those classified as foreman-trainees. The supervisors
were counseled about their responsibilities during a union
campaign, given written material in regard thereto, and in-
structed to answer the employees' questions about the
Union.
Sometime shortly before the middle of August, tempo-
rary packaging worker Janice DeLancey was told by a fel-
low employee that with a union their benefits would be
bargained "from scratch." She disputed this, and the other
employee brought Dick Atkins, a foreman-trainee, over to
support his argument. Atkins showed DeLancey a book
where it stated that they would not necessarily bargain
from their present level of benefits. He also showed her a
page containing a dues authorization card and told her that
she would be forced to sign such a card. When it was point-
ed out that Mr. Carlson, the packaging manager, was
watching them, DeLancey told Atkins that they were not
supposed to be discussing the Union on company time.
Atkins replied, "Yes, we are. That is O.K. That is what I
am paid to do." Shortly thereafter, Charlie Wink, a fore-
man, asked DeLancey whether she had any questions in
regard to what she had just been told. He went on to tell
her about an organizational campaign in 1947 which re-
sulted in a strike, leaving 70 employees "still on strike."
In the week of August 22, Atkins spoke with Robert
Lewis, a permanent employee, about Lewis' wife, Lori.
Lori Lewis was a temporary packaging worker who had
bid on a permanent job. After asking Lewis not to repeat
their conversation, Atkins said that "he wanted to know if
Lori was for the Union or not." When Lewis questioned
why he asked, Atkins told him that Bob Shust, director of
personnel, had asked him earlier and he thought it might
make a difference on the job she had bid on. Lewis told
Atkins that if Lori got the permanent job, she would not
vote for the Union. Atkins said that he would get the word
back to Shust.2
Shust denied that he had asked any supervisor to ques-
tion employees concerning their union activities. He fur-
ther denied that Atkins ever told him of the union sympa-
thies of any employee, including Lori Lewis. I find no basis
for discrediting Shust.
Atkins and Wink were not called to refute the credibly offered testi-
mony of DeLance) and Robert Lewis. Neither Lewis' alleged interest in
these proceedings. nor his willingness to volunteer that his wife would vote
against the Union If favored with a permanent job. affords any basis for
discrediting his testimony. Accordingly. I find the facts as set forth above.
858
DORSEY LABORATORY, DIVISION OF SANDOZ, INC.
D. Adoption of the 12-Month Rule
In early August, Respondent adopted an entirely new
policy which provided that the tenure of temporary em-
ployees would be limited to 12 months from their original
date of hire. It required the termination of temporaries
with longer tenure even though they had not worked con-
tinuously. 3 The policy, adopted by Respondent's opera-
tions committee, was announced to the temporary employ-
ees by Packaging Manager James Carlson on August 15.
He told a number of temporary employees that they were
being laid off for lack of work and that the new policy (as
described above) was being implemented. He explained
that the policy had been adopted because there was dissat-
isfaction among both the permanent and temporary em-
ployees over the job bidding, the way that permanent em-
ployees were hired, and the inability of the temporary
workers to become permanent. Lori Lewis asked whether
this new policy would not create new hardships for the
permanent employees, requiring them to train more new
temporary employees. Carlson agreed that it would but
stated that this was Dorsey's new policy. The temporary
employees were also told that they were still eligible to bid
for permanent positions.4
As a result of the new policy, at least 12 temporary em-
ployees 5 were terminated between August 15, 1977, and
the date of this hearing. An additional employee, Twyla
Rhoades, who was laid off on August 15, declined an offer
of recall which would have permitted her to work for about
I week before the policy would have required her termina-
tion.
The 12-month rule is still in effect. Newly hired tempo-
rary employees are required to sign statements evidencing
their knowledge of the rule.
E. Respondent's Justification for the 12-Month Rule
motivated it to adopt the 12-month rule. On August 3, it
was faced with a need to lay off a number of its temporary
employees due to a shortage of materials. In view of the
filing of the representation petition on August I, Respon-
dent felt that it needed a neutral, objective means of select-
ing employees for this layoff which would also be consis-
tent with corporate directives to reduce costs and improve
profitability. In late 1976 and early 1977, Respondent had
surveyed its employees in regard to their job attitudes.
complaints, and suggestions. A number of the responses
indicated that there was dissatisfaction among both the
permanent and temporary employees arising from the una-
vailability of permanent positions, with their attendant su-
perior benefits, for the temporaries. Moreover, in 1977
there was a decrease in productivity in the packaging de-
partment and a simultaneous increase in the number of
label discrepancies, i.e., potentially costly mistakes which
may involve the failure to label all medications leaving the
plant, in violation of Federal Drug Administration regula-
tions. It was upon these considerations, according to Re-
spondent's brief, that "Respondent's management con-
cluded that limiting the tenure of temporary employees to
12 months from their original date of hire was necessary
because longer term or older temporaries had become dis-
satisfied over their continuing temporary status causing
their productivity and attention to detail to decline."
General Counsel did not contest Respondent's justifica-
tion for a layoff of some employees on August 15. Neither
was there any contradiction of the memoranda Respon-
dent received from its corporate parent dunng 1975, 1976,
and 1977, placing constraints upon expenditures, limiting
its employment of permanent employees, and urging that
steps be taken to increase productivity. In regard to pro-
ductivity, measured on the basis of unit doses of medica-
tion handled in the department per employee/hour paid,
Respondent's records show the following:
According to Respondent's witnesses, several factors
1977 Productivity
Current Month's Productivity as a Percsntage of 1976
Total Productivity Index (TPI)
1.Moth Ds tr. 'Quality
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
91
83
82
91
85
98
106
93
74
80
102
105
95
111
98
77
88
108
116
110
133
Respondent had earlier enforced policies which presented temporart
employees from working 6 or 12 months of contnuosui emplo)ment
The foregoing is a composite of the testimonies of Carlson and varlous
employee witne ses. There were no serious lnconsistencles. (arison did nl,l
deny that Lori Lewis asked him whether the new polic) would make more
103
80
95
79
92 89
112 111
116 106
107 98
98 102
work for the permanent employees or that he replied In
scribed above.
i v. .. .
93
87
86
89
93
99
106
the manner de
Vera Albers. M)rna targin. Marie Burke, Janice DkeLance,. Sharon
Reber. Pam Vryheid, Beverly Wisner, Pegg) Miller. Lori Lewis,. Maxine
Nicolite. Jackie Mars, and Shirley L. Davis.
' Directives criticizing the profitabihlt of Respondent and imposing sirln-
gent controls on costs had been received as recently as July 25
All
'ArMas
859
' ' .Pt-d
'. EfLn -Cottol
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Year to
"Date 7/ 91
Au=g, 102 8/
Sept. 93
Oct. 97
Nov, 104
DeC. 94
faull
Year 94
94
103
103
101
108
78
96
104
110
117
113
102
69
103
101
92
116
114
119
75
102
In sum, the foregoing figures show that the packaging
department's productivity, when compared to its produc-
tivity in 1976 (when there was similarly no restriction on
the employment of long term temporaries) had fallen. It
similarly lagged behind other departments, which em-
ployed few, if any, temporary employees. They also show
that in the 2 months preceding the implementation of the
rule, the packaging department experienced an increase in
productivity, as did certain other departments. Productiv-
ity following elimination of the senior temporary employ-
ees was somewhat higher than previously.
As noted, Respondent also adduced evidence that the
number of label discrepancies had increased from two in
1975 to three in 1976 and six through July 1977. The dis-
crepancies in 1975 were attributed to the possible loss of
rejected labels, and directions were given for the proper
instruction of both permanent and temporary packaging
and maintenance workers in the retention and counting of
such labels. One of the discrepancies in 1976 was similarly
attributed to either the improper discarding of label stubs
or an error in reading the count of labels. The remaining
two in 1976 were held to be counting errors. Of the six
discrepancies through July 1977, at least two were attribut-
ed to counting errors. The counting is done in the label
room, where no temporary employees work. A third dis-
crepancy was attributed to a packaging operator and a
fourth to an equipment malfunction. Only two, it appears,
were of a type which might have been caused by an error
'of a temporary employee, and one of those came to light
after the 12-month rule was adopted. No evidence was ad-
duced to establish that any of the label discrepancies were
actually caused by temporary employees.
Respondent further contended that it considered infor-
mation, gathered in late 1976 and 1977, indicating that the
temporary employees were dissatisfied with their continu-
ing temporary status and lack of opportunity to share in
the same benefits as the permanent employees. In Novem-
ber 1976, Respondent held "rap" sessions with the packag-
ing workers. Its compilation of questions and complaints
shows that 86 complaints were voiced. Of these, 11 dealt
with various aspects pertaining to the training of tempo-
7The Figures through July 1977 were those available to Respondent at
the time it decided upon and implemented the 12-month rule.
The results after August 15 reflect productivity after the elimination of
those affected by the 12-month rule.
rary employees, 3 on the quality of the termporaries' work,
I on the number of new employees on the lines, I on call-
ing temporaries on snow days, and I on holiday pay for
temporaries. As a result of these rap sessions, Respondent
raised the pay of the temporary employees and began to
give them paid holidays under some conditions. Subse-
quently, in early 1977, it distributed questionnaires to the
termporary employees, soliciting comments about their
employment. Of the 12 questionnaires placed in evidence,
7 raise questions about benefits, and 3 inquire about the
acquisition of permanent employment.
Finally, Respondent adduced evidence, developed in
preparation for hearing, which, it contended validated the
decision it had made to impose the 12-month rule. Dr.
Sang M. Lee 9 demonstrated, through the use of statistical
analysis, that there was a correlation between the percent-
age of long term temporary employees in the packaging
department and lowered productivity. He attributed this
lowered productivity to increased dissatisfaction over the
lack of opportunity to acquire permanent employee status.
Analysis and Conclusions
I. Section 8(a)(l)
General Counsel alleges that Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)( ) of the Act when Dick Atkins interrogated Rob-
ert Lewis about his wife's union proclivities and intimated
that opposition to the Union might facilitate her assign-
ment to a permanent position. I agree. The record is clear
that, whether or not Atkins was a supervisor, Respondent
had made him its agent for the express purpose of discuss-
ing the Union with its employees. He was brought into
meetings where he was instructed to answer employee
questions and was given propaganda to use in doing so.
His conversations with at least some of the employees were
observed and tacitly or expressly approved by both his
manager and his foreman. The uncontradicted statements
attributed to Atkins were clearly within the scope of his
agency. As they unquestionably tended to interfere with,
9Professor of Management Science and C(hairman of the Department of
Management at the University of Nebraska. College of Business Adminis-
tratlon.
97
89
96
101
102
71
93
100
97
100
106
86
95 96
860
DORSEY LABORATORY. DIVISION OF SANDOZ. INC
restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their statu-
tory rights, I find that Respondent must be held responsi-
ble and in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. Section 8(a)(3)
The problem presented by this portion of the case is not
to determine what happened. That is clear. Rather. the
question is one of motivation. Why did Respondent adopt
the 12-month rule? The burden of establishing that its mo-
tivation was unlawful falls initially upon the General
Counsel; the burden of disproving its unlawful nature does
not shift to the Respondent until General Counsel has es-
tablished a prima facie case of discrimination. See, for ex-
ample, Consolidated Diesel Electric Company Division of
Condec Corporation, 193 NLRB 931, 933 (1971). In the
complaint, as amended, General Counsel alleged that Re-
spondent adopted the 12-month rule and terminated 13
employees pursuant thereto, "because of its employees' in-
terests in, support for, and activities on behalf of, the
Union." In brief, General Counsel further explicated its
theory to allege that the policy was adopted (I) to support
Respondent's contention that temporary employees did
not share a community of interest with the permanent em-
ployees and should therefore be excluded from the appro-
priate bargaining unit, and (2) to provide a method of ter-
minating temporary employees who Respondent feared
supported the Union.
Notwithstanding that General Counsel has adduced
some evidence of union activity, knowledge, timing, and
animus, the basic elements of a Section 8(a)(3) case. I must
conclude that its burden of proving unlawful motivation
has not been met.
That Respondent's timing is suspect cannot be gainsaid.
The rule was adopted within days of the filing of the peti-
tion and was admittedly prompted by it, at least in part.
However, Respondent's justification, that the existence Gf
the union activity required it to formulate a neutral and
objective method for determining who shall be laid off, is
not clearly unreasonable. There was no evidence of how
those to be laid off would have been chosen, other than
arbitrarily, prior to the rule.
Further, while General Counsel adduced evidence of the
union activity, there was no evidence to establish that the
activity centered upon the temporary employees or even
that a substantial number of the temporary employees sup-
ported the Union. Similarly, while Respondent admitted
knowledge of the union activity from its inception, no evi-
dence was proffered tending to establish that Respondent
believed or suspected that its corp of temporary employees
constituted a stronghold of union support. Accordingly,
there is no basis for a finding, as argued by the second part
of General Counsel's theory, that the rule was adopted to
eliminate temporary employees because of their real or sus-
pected union activity.
Similarly, there is only minimal evidence of union ani-
mus. The single incident deemed violative of Section
8(a)(1) was committed by an individual at the very lowest
level of the managerial hierarchy, an individual whom I
have found to be an agent of the Employer but to whom
there was no evidence to support a conclusion of superviso-
ri status. No vigorous antiunion campaign, such as might
provide evidence of unlawful motivation, was conducted.
On the contrary, while Respondent acknowledged aware-
ness of the Union's campaign from its inception in mid-
Mav. there is no evidence that it took any steps to counter
that campaign prior to August.)°
Add!tionally. I note that while General Counsel argued
that the rule was adopted in order to strengthen Respon-
dent's contention in the representation case that temporary
employees should be excluded from the bargaining unit.
the record contains no evidence that Respondent relied
upon the rule in so arguing. I cannot assume that it did so.
If it could be concluded from the record developed
herein that Respondent's reason for adoption of the 12-
month rule is false, an inference might be warranted that
its undisclosed reason must be unlawful.i I conclude, how-
ever, that while Respondent's justifications for the 12-
month rule are not free from suspicion, that suspicion is
not sufficient to raise an inference of illegality. Thus, it is
clear that Respondent was creating more work for itself, at
the necessary expense of productivity, when by the adop-
tion of the rule it required the hiring, indoctrination, and
training of some number of new temporary employees. It
would further appear that Respondent's rationale, i.e., that
longer term temporaries become dissatisfied and therefore
do not perform so well, is contrary to the ordinary logic
which would teach that more experienced employees will
perform better than those who are less experienced. How-
ever, Respondent's documentation does show a correlation
between the presence of long term termporary employees
and both lower productivity and higher discrepancy rates.
That correlation might only be coincidental or it might, as
Dr. Lee submitted, support the thesis upon which Respon-
dent claimed to have based its rule. It does establish that
Respondent's rationale was not without some reasonable
basis.
For all of the foregoing reasons, therefore, I must con-
clude that the General Counsel has failed to sustain its
burden of proving that Respondent's adoption of the 12-
month rule was motivated by antiunion considerations, in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By interrogating an employee concerning the union
activities. sympathies, and desires of another employee,
and by telling an employee that acquisition of permanent
employment might depend on an employee's attitude to-
ward the Union, Respondent has interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their
C" (mrpalre M.ntlndani It/lrnatonal. I, ,. 223 NLRB 965 1976). where
Ihe emploser's ligorous anllunion campaign, which included anllunion
polxers and captule audience speeches. "was deemed to esidence unlawful
mnloB ti(ion "
ISmtnchalr I lalcninc (m,,panl 223 NLRB 1043. 1046 11976). Compare
Sh'lhb l qyra . , and .C thet n Dirhurn 5 ( omnani a D v ton e ./Shelbh l-i-
qyi.r 208 NlRB 859 19741
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Section 7 rights and has violated Section 8(aX)( 1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. Respondent has not violated the Act in any other
manner alleged in the complaint.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom. I further recommend that it take certain
affirmative action which I find is necessary to effectuate
the policies and purposes of the Act, even though there was
but a single violative incident established herein, and even
though the Union has now withdrawn its representation
petition. See Amoco Oil Company, Marketing & Transporta-
tion Division, 223 NLRB 946 (1976).
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record herein, and pursuant to Section liBc)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER "2
The Respondent, Dorsey Laboratory, Division of San-
doz, Inc., its officiers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating employees concerning the union activi-
ties, sympathies, or desires of other employees.
(b) Telling employees that acquisition of permanent em-
ployment might depend on an employee's attitude toward
the Union.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action:
(a) Post at its Lincoln, Nebraska, plant copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 13Copies of said no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 17, after being duly signed by Respondent, shall be
posted immediately upon receipt thereof and be main-
tained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material. Additionally, in
view of the termination of certain temporary employees
pursuant to Respondent's 12-month rule, copies of said no-
tice shall, after being signed by Respondent, be mailed to
the last known mailing address of all employees terminated
pursuant to that rule since August 15, 1977.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 17, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
1: In the event no exceptions are filed as provided b) Sec. 102.46 of the
Rule, 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
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
13 In the event that this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals. the kwords in the notice reading "Posted by 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"
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 sides had a chance to give
evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has
ordered us to post this notice, and we intend to carry out
the Order of the Board and abide by the following:
The Act gives all employees these rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or help unions
To bargain collectively through representatives of
their choosing
To act together for collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection
To refrain from any or all of these things.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning
their union activities, sympathies, and desires.
WE WILL NOT tell employees that acquisition of per-
manent employment might depend on their attitudes
toward unions.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed them in the National Labor
Relations Act.
DORSEY LABORATORY. DIVISION OF SANDOZ, INC.
862