NOTICE: This
opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes
of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested
to notify the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
Al & John, Inc., d/b/a Glen Rock Ham and Noel Echavarria Gonzalez. Case 22–CA–27477
May 23, 2008
DECISION AND ORDER
By Chairman Schaumber and Member Liebman
On February 13, 2008, Administrative Law Judge Eleanor
MacDonald issued the attached decision.
The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel filed a cross-exception and a supporting brief.
The National
Labor Relations Board has considered the decision and the record in light of
the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1
and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.2
ORDER
The National
Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Al & John, Inc., d/b/a Glen Rock Ham,
Dated,
Peter C. Schaumber, Chairman
Wilma
B. Liebman, Member
(seal) National
Labor Relations Board
Dorothy Foley, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Alan I.
Model, Esq., (Littler Mendelson), of
DECISION
Statement
of the Case
Eleanor Macdonald, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed by the parties, I make the following.1
Findings of
Fact
i. jurisdiction
Respondent is
engaged in the processing and sale of ham and related meat products at its
plant in
ii. alleged
unfair labor practices
A.
Background
The parties agree that the following are supervisors and agents of Respondent within the meaning, respectively, of Section 2(11) and 2(13) of the Act:
John Udrija Plant Manager
Alexander Oldja President
Eduardo Blanco Supervisor
The plant at issue herein manufactures hams and emulsified meat products. For purposes of this decision a very brief description of the process is required. Various types of raw hams and other products are prepared by the plant butchers and are then cooked in metal molds. The empty molds weigh about 15 lbs. Clean molds must be transported to the work areas where they will be filled and once the molds are filled they must be transported to the cook room. Clean molds are stacked on large metal carts; witnesses testified variously that from 100 to 250 empty molds could be stacked on each cart. The carts are 8 to 10 feet long and have four wheels. A cart full of clean molds is of a height that a man cannot see over the top. Such a cart is very heavy and must be moved using a battery powered jack.2 The arms of the jack are inserted into the cart so as to raise one end of the cart and then the cart is pulled to the desired location. Full molds are placed into a container called a basket; these are not relevant to the instant case.
Jon Udrija has been the plant manager of the company for 25 or 26 years. He oversees all activities on the production floor. The witnesses herein agreed that Udrija regularly visits the production floor.3 The company employs about 200 production workers. The plant produces about 10,000 hams on an average day. There are 3 foremen in the plant: the foreman of butchers is Milan Madjarcic; the foreman of the processing employees is Anton “Tony” Marinescu; the foreman of ready-to-eat products is Eduardo Blanco.
Local 464(A), UFCWU, represents a unit of butchers at the facility. Employees who are not butchers are not included in the unit. Charging Party Noel Echavarria Gonzalez worked transporting ham molds to various locations around the plant and he was excluded from the bargaining unit.
On December 16, 2005 OSHA conducted an inspection of the plant. A Citation and Notification of Penalty was issued on March 27, 2006. The violations found concerned faulty equipment, dangerous physical conditions in the plant and the failure to evaluate powered truck operators' performance at least once every three years. In May 2006 OSHA met with plant officials including Jon Udrija and Jennifer Oldja.4 Udrija testified that at this meeting OSHA directed the company to keep records of safety violations. Udrija said he had been giving mostly verbal warnings but OSHA said that he should document these warnings. As a result, Udrija stated, “I started to be a little more careful and document the warnings that I gave to employees.”
A stipulated settlement amending the proposed OSHA penalties was signed by Jennifer Oldja on June 6, 2006. The company agreed to implement a safety and health program and to provide training concerning the program to all employees. Jennifer Oldja testified that at the time of the hearing the company was in the process of publishing a safety program and that it had issued a brochure in March 2007.
Udrija testified concerning the Respondent's disciplinary policy. He said, “Nobody is disciplined for a warning.” However, if the same problem occurred again, if the employee did not correct the problem, he would be subject to suspension or termination. Udrija stated that he gives a warning but if the problem continues then the employee is subject to termination.
B.
Noel Echavarria Gonzalez
Echavarria Gonzalez started working at the plant on July 13, 1997.5 After some preliminary assignments he began driving the electric jacks around the plant.6 Echavarria Gonzalez testified that his job included retrieving carts with empty molds from an area where they are stored and taking the carts to a line where 10 or 11 employees fill the molds. Because of the size and weight of the carts, they must be moved to the line one at a time. In addition, when taking a cart from the area where the carts are stored care must be used to move only one cart at a time to avoid flipping it over. Echavarria Gonzalez testified that in the 7 years he has been moving carts he has not received any warnings in connection with this task.
Echavarria Gonzalez' regular shift is from 6 am to 2:30 pm. However, he often works overtime depending on how much meat must be processed by the plant each day. Plant manager Jon Udrija determines the production for each day and the plant operates until the production goal for the day is met. Echavarria Gonzalez usually works overtime until he has supplied the line for which he is responsible with enough molds to finish the day's work. If he cannot work overtime on a certain day, he notifies his supervisor that day or the day before.
The Bonus
Issue
Echavarria Gonzalez
testified that the unrepresented employees were given a bonus every year after
Thanksgiving Day. The practice at the plant was to grant non-union employees a
bonus when the unit employees received the bonus specified by their collective
bargaining agreement. In June 2006, the
Rafael Adames, a non-unit employee, testified that he had heard from Union shop steward Idaver “Eddie” Memetov that the new contract provided for an extra bonus in addition to the traditional end-of-year bonus. At first, the unrepresented employees were happy because they believed that they too would get the mid-year bonus. On June 30, 2006 when it became clear that only the unit employees had received a bonus check, Adames and the other unrepresented employees called plant manager Jon Udrija to the work area and asked why they did not get the bonus. Adames testified that Udrija turned red and looked upset. Udrija said, “I never told you I was going to give you a bonus.” After the employees pointed out that every year they got the same bonus as the Union employees, Udrija repeated that he had never promised them a bonus. Adames stated that following this exchange with Udrija the employees got together and decided to organize themselves so that they could receive benefits. The employees all thought, “We're worthless. We're nobody.” Adames signed a list of employees who wanted to organize that Echavarria Gonzalez circulated in the plant.
Echavarria Gonzalez
testified that on June 30 he put his name on a list and he solicited signatures
by telling the employees that they had to join the
Echavarria Gonzalez
intended to send the list of employees to Local 464(a) to show that the
signatories wished to become Union members and receive the same benefits as the
unit employees. As will be seen below, he sent the original to the
The Written
Warning
On Wednesday July 5, Echavarria Gonzalez testified, Jon Udrija handed him a written warning. The warning, dated July 1, was as follows
On Saturday 01/01/2006 you were noticed pushing, with power pallet jack, several carts loaded with molds. This could result in injury of another employee who may be on the opposite side and also damageing (sic) the molds and carts.
If you continue to be desobedient (sic) and careless it may result in termination of employment.
Echavarria Gonzalez,
who was the first witness called in this proceeding, testified that he was not
at work on Saturday, July 1, 2006. Respondent's payroll records show that he
was not working that day. Echavarria Gonzalez stated that he did not know why
Udrija gave him the July 1 warning; he thought it was because he was collecting
signatures for the
After Echavarria Gonzalez testified on direct examination and before Udrija testified, Jennifer Oldja testified about a conversation she had with Udrija outside the courtroom during a break in the instant proceeding. Oldja stated that she alerted Udrija about the date of July 1 2006 because Echavarria Gonzalez claimed he had not worked that day and she wanted to be sure that the company produced the payroll records.
Udrija testified later in the hearing. He stated that on July 1 he had seen Gonzalez using the power pallet jack to push several carts loaded with empty molds out of the way so that he could reach certain carts containing the molds needed for a certain line.8 Udrija said he stopped Gonzalez immediately and told him he could not see who was standing in the area behind the carts and he could kill someone or damage the equipment. Udrija stated that Gonzalez was pushing at least 3 carts at the same time. Udrija recalled that this incident occurred on a Saturday. Udrija testified that he wrote the warning at a later date and gave it to Echavarria Gonzalez on July 3. He said he had spoken to Gonzalez many times about safety issues but in the past he did not issue many written warnings. Since the OSHA visit he gave more written warnings. Udrija testified that when he gave Echavarria Gonzalez the written warning he did not know that the latter had been collecting signatures in an attempt to organize the employees.
Udrija did not explain how he could have observed Echavarria Gonzalez engaging in the unsafe maneuver on Saturday July 1 when it was clear that the employee had not worked that day. Udrija did not state that the incident could have taken place on another day; he remembered that it happened on a Saturday. Respondent offered no testimony or evidence to explain the discrepancy between Echavarria Gonzalez' attendance record and the purported July 1 incident which led to the written warning.
The
Discharge
Echavarria Gonzalez
went to the
According to Echavarria Gonzalez the practice at the plant permitted him to notify the supervisor of his inability to work overtime either the day before or on the day of the intended early departure. In fact, Echavarria Gonzalez stated, it was permissible to wait until the end of the shift to inform the supervisor that one had to leave at that time. The purpose of informing the supervisor that he had to leave was to enable the supervisor to assign another employee to perform the tasks he would have performed had he stayed to work overtime. Adames testified that he would inform his supervisor the day before or in the morning if he had to leave work early. Adames also testified that he had left work on 4 or 5 occasions without asking permission. There is no indication in the record that Adames was disciplined for leaving work early without asking permission. Jon Udrija testified that if an employee cannot work overtime he must notify a foreman at least a couple of hours prior to going home or in the morning so that a replacement can be found. The company does not force employees to work overtime.
On July 5, 2006 Echavarria Gonzalez' foreman, Tony Marinescu, was on vacation. Echavarria Gonzalez testified that he notified foreman Eduardo Blanco that he had to leave at 2:30 on that day. It is clear from the record that the employer would regard notification to Blanco as sufficient in the absence of the regular foreman. According to Echavarria Gonzalez he received permission from Blanco to leave at 2:30; Blanco said, “No problem.”
Jon Udrija testified that he learned that Echavarria Gonzalez had left the plant when he looked out of his office and noticed that employees on the packing line were sitting around with no work because they had no empty molds. Udrija asked where Echavarria Gonzalez was and he looked for him in various locations without finding him. Udrija assigned another employee to supply the packing line with molds. He estimated that the production line was down from 30 to 35 minutes due to the lack of clean molds.
Jon Udrija called Echavarria Gonzalez at home and, receiving no answer, called his cell phone while the latter was standing in line at the Post Office. Udrija asked why he had left early. After Echavarria Gonzalez explained that he had to go to the Post Office, Udrija asked whether he had obtained permission. Echavarria Gonzalez replied that Blanco had given him permission to leave. Udrija said he would investigate and find out what happened. Udrija testified that he wanted to meet with Blanco “because he's the one that didn't follow up.” Udrija was ready to reprimand Blanco at this point.
When Jon Udrija confronted Blanco, Blanco denied that Echavarria Gonzalez had told him about leaving early. Blanco testified herein that on July 5 he did not speak to Echavarria Gonzalez at all and the latter did not inform him that he had to leave early. Blanco stated that he himself had left the plant to pick up his daughter. Blanco said he was not sure what time he left the plant. He might have left work at 3:30 but he might have left earlier.11 When Udrija spoke to Blanco it was on the latter's cell phone at around 4 pm.
When Echavarria Gonzalez came to work on July 6 he was told to wait for Jon Udrija in the shipping area. Eventually Udrija and Blanco appeared. Udrija asked Echavarria Gonzalez whether he had asked permission to leave the day before and the latter replied that he had indeed asked. Then Blanco said that Echavarria Gonzalez had not asked permission. Echavarria Gonzalez immediately said to Blanco, in Spanish, “How he could say such a thing.” Blanco did not answer. Blanco testified that Echavarria Gonzalez said, “You work here and you're not going to say the truth.”
Following this meeting Jon Udrija took Echavarria Gonzalez to a conference room where the two men met with company president Alexander Oldja. Echavarria Gonzalez testified that Udrija told the owner, “that I was the guy.” Oldja said that Echavarria Gonzalez was being fired because he left without permission. Echavarria Gonzalez thanked Oldja for being allowed to work in the company and then remarked that, “I knew why I was being fired.”
Jon Udrija testified
that he told Alexander Oldja what had happened on July 5 when he and Echavarria
Gonzalez met with Oldja. Udrija stated that he also informed Oldja that Echavarria
Gonzalez had been given a safety violation. Oldja asked Echavarria Gonzalez why
he left without telling anyone. According to Udrija at this point Echavarria
Gonzalez became “a little loud” and said, “You guys don't believe me.”
Echavarria Gonzalez insisted that he had informed Blanco of his need to leave
early but that Blanco did not want to admit it. Udrija recalled that Echavarria
Gonzalez lifted up his hands and was walking toward the door. Udrija testified,
“The decision between Alex and me was made then so we told him, as of today
you're terminated.” When he was asked when the decision to terminate Echavarria
Gonzalez was made, Udrija replied that, “We made the decision when he started
being loud and started walking out and we said as far as we're concerned you're
terminated as of today.” Udrija said he did not know that Echavarria Gonzalez
was circulating a list for the
After this meeting on July 6 Udrija wrote up an “Employee Record.” This document, dated July 6, 2006 states in relevant part as follows
On Wednesday 07/05/2006 you left work at 2:30 PM, while the production line was running, without notifying your forman (sic).
This caused a lot of problem; other employees stopped their work waiting for you to supply them with ham molds, not knowing that you left already.
You were told that if you cannot stay longer you must notify your forman so he could find another employee who could replace your position.
You were counseled on Thursday 07/06/2006.
You stated that you did report to your foreman, Edward Blanco.
When I asked Blanco, in your presence, whether he received any notification from you, Blanco stated that you did not notify him at all that you have to leave at 2:30 PM.
After reviewing your previous warning on file, also due to causing down time on production line and stating a false statement I have no alternative choice but to terminate your employment with Al & John Inc.
Udrija testified that Echavarria Gonzalez did not have a history of leaving the plant without giving notice. Usually he would notify a supervisor if he had to leave before the daily production was completed.
C.
Written Warnings Issued to Employees
The Respondent produced all the written warnings from its files. The warnings predating Echavarria Gonzalez' discharge are summarized below. These warnings did not result in immediate termination:
11/26/2003 Leaving
the packing line for 20 minutes to
go to the locker room.
10/10/2005 Failing to wear proper safety shoes.
10/25/2005 Failing to wear proper safety shoes.
3/27/2006 Failing to report to work and failing to call; this is a repeat violation
3/23/2006 Failing to report to work and failing to call.
4/3/2006 Failing to report to work and failing to call.
4/5/2006 Failing to report to work and failing to call.
4/6/2006 Failing to report to work and failing to call.
4/10/2006 Failing to report to work and failing to call.
4/11/2006 Causing friction with another worker.
4/12/2006 Coming to work over one hour late; this is a repeat violation.
5/11/2006 Failing to report to work and failing to call. (Two employees.)
5/15/2006 Failing to report to work and failing to call.
6/1/2006 Starting lunch hour 17 minutes early; this is a violation.
6/19/2006 Failing to report to work and failing to call.
6/19/2006 Mixing clean and dirty molds.
6/30/2006 Riding power pallet jack too fast with potential to cause injury.
7/1/2006 Failing to report to work and failing to call. (Seven employees.)
7/3/2006 Failing to report to work and failing to call.
iii. discussion
and conclusions
I find that
Echavarria Gonzalez was a truthful witness. Despite the difficulties of
testifying through an interpreter he made an obvious effort to listen to the
questions and to answer them fully. His testimony was supported by the
documentary evidence with respect to his dates of work, the telephone calls to
the
I credit the testimony of Adames. Adames gave the impression that he answered each question based on his actual recollection, he was cooperative on cross examination and no reason is apparent in the record for discrediting any part of his testimony.
I shall not rely on the testimony of Blanco and Udrija where it conflicts with the testimony of Echavarria Gonzalez. Blanco's narrative is at odds with what I have found to be a truthful and reliable account of the events. Blanco did not have a good recall of the events of July 5. Blanco could not remember what time he left the plant that day. This leads me to conclude that he did not have an accurate recollection of whether Echavarria Gonzalez did or did not speak to him about leaving work at 2:30. As set forth in detail below, I find that Udrija's testimony conflicts with the documentary evidence and that his stated reasons for the discharge are both shifting and inconsistent with his description of Respondent's disciplinary policy.
I rely on Adames'
uncontradicted testimony that on June 30 the unrepresented employees confronted
Udrija about the fact that they had not received a bonus with their paychecks.
I credit Adames that Udrija turned red and looked upset and said he had never
promised them a bonus. I credit Echavarria Gonzalez that beginning in the
morning of June 30, 2006 he solicited signatures from non-unit employees who
wanted to join the
The General Counsel urges that Udrija engaged in unlawful surveillance of Echavarria Gonzalez' Union activities. The testimony establishes that in the usual execution of his duties Udrija was often on the plant floor and that he checked the operations of the employees on a regular and consistent basis. The evidence does not show that Udrija increased his normally frequent presence in the production area. That Udrija witnessed Echavarria Gonzalez collecting signatures does not prove unlawful surveillance; it only shows that Udrija was engaged in his job duties by paying attention to what everyone was doing and making sure that production continued without any problems. I shall not find a violation as to the alleged surveillance.
The testimony and documentary evidence set forth above shows that Echavarria Gonzalez was not at work on Saturday July 1, 2006. Nevertheless, Udrija testified that he witnessed him using the power pallet jack in an unsafe manner on that Saturday. Udrija gave Echavarria Gonzalez a written warning on Wednesday July 5 for the supposed safety infraction. Respondent did not seek to deal with this discrepancy. No extended discussion is required to conclude that the written warning for July 1 cannot be used as the basis for further discipline. Since Echavarria Gonzalez was not present in the plant on July 1 and since he cannot have used the power pallet jack improperly on that day, the written warning is a nullity.
I find that Udrija was not a credible or reliable witness based, in part, on his testimony about the purported safety violation of Saturday July 1. Udrija was sure he observed Echavarria Gonzalez on Saturday and he described in great detail the actions of the latter in executing an unsafe maneuver. Before Udrija testified herein he had been told by Jennifer Oldja that Echavarria Gonzalez denied being at work on Saturday July 1, and Oldja and Udrija had discussed production of the payroll records for that date. Yet even though he had an obvious opportunity to search his memory Udrija persisted in his testimony that Echavarria Gonzalez was the employee who performed an unsafe action on Saturday July 1. I conclude that Udrija testified without regard to the accuracy of his statements in order to uphold Respondent's position in the instant litigation.
The uncontradicted
testimony shows that when the unrepresented employees confronted Udrija about
the bonus he turned red and looked upset. Udrija told them more than once that
he had never promised them a bonus. I find that Udrija was upset that these
employees were demanding the same bonus that the Union members had received
pursuant to the new contract. Because Respondent issued a warning to Echavarria
Gonzalez for a day on which he did not work and because Respondent presented
testimony that he committed a safety infraction that day even in the face of
its own documents showing that he was not working on Saturday July 1, I
conclude that the issuance and use of the warning to justify the subsequent
discharge was a pretext. I find that Udrija issued the warning dated July 1,
2006 to Echavarria Gonzalez on July 5 2006 because he solicited signatures from
employees who wanted to join the
Echavarria Gonzalez testified that he notified foreman Blanco that he had to leave at 2:30 on July 5. When Udrija called Echavarria Gonzalez after 4 pm Udrija apparently believed him when he said that he had indeed notified Blanco. Udrija testified that Echavarria Gonzalez did not have a habit of leaving without informing the foreman, and Udrija was prepared to cast the blame on Blanco for failing to assign another worker to cover for Echavarria Gonzalez. By the time Udrija met with Blanco and Echavarria Gonzalez on July 6, however, he readily credited Blanco. Udrija did not explain why he believed Blanco when Echavarria Gonzalez continued to maintain that he had given notice to Blanco. I have found that Echavarria Gonzalez is a truthful witness and I find that Echavarria Gonzalez notified Blanco at 2:30 on July 5 that he could not work late that day.
Udrija's testimony about the decision to discharge Echavarria Gonzalez is inconsistent with the written employee record he prepared. This is another factor in my conclusion that Udrija is not a credible or reliable witness. Udrija testified that he and Alexander Oldja made the decision to terminate Echavarria Gonzalez during the meeting of July 6 “when he started being loud and started walking out and we said as far as we're concerned you're terminated as of today.” Yet the employee record prepared by Udrija after the meeting states that termination is due to “your previous warning on file, also due to causing down time on the production line and stating a false statement.” This document makes no mention of Echavarria Gonzalez using loud words or beginning to walk out of the meeting. The use of shifting reasons to justify an employee discharge inevitably casts doubt on the truthfulness of the asserted reasons and leads to a conclusion that the employer is covering up an unlawful motive.
Finally, the timing of the bogus safety warning and the discharge of Echavarria Gonzalez soon after he began soliciting employee signatures to join the Union lead me to conclude that he was discharged because of his organizational activities.
I find that Respondent discharged Echavarria Gonzalez on July 6, 2006 because he engaged in Union activities. Respondent thus violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
Furthermore, Respondent has not shown that it would have discharged Echavarria Gonzalez in the absence of his Union activities. Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083, 1089 (1980), enfd. 662 F. 2d 899 (1st cir. 1981), cert denied 455 US 989 (1982). The decision to discharge Echavarria Gonzalez was inconsistent with Respondent's stated disciplinary policy. Udrija testified that “nobody is disciplined for a warning” but if the same problem occurred again the employee would be subject to suspension or termination. In this case, Echavarria Gonzalez was warned for a safety infraction. Then he was subject to discharge for allegedly leaving without informing his foreman that he could not work overtime. Under Respondent's own policy, Echavarria Gonzalez should not have been discharged for leaving at the end of his shift on July 5. Because this was the first time he had been disciplined for engaging in this type of misconduct he should have been issued a warning. Udrija did not testify that unrelated warnings would contribute to a decision to discharge an employee; Udrija said an employee who was warned would be discharged if the same problem occurred again. I also apply this reasoning to the third cited reason for the discharge, that is, making a “false statement” about whether he had notified his foreman that he had to leave. I note that Udrija admitted that because Echavarria Gonzalez did not have a habit of leaving work without notice Udrija was ready to blame Blanco for the down time on the packing line. Manifestly, Udrija would not have initially credited Echavarria Gonzalez if he had been warned previously for making a “false statement.”
Finally, the written warnings issued to other employees before July 6, 2006, show that Echavarria was treated disparately as compared to other employees who engaged in attendance misconduct. On November 26, 2003 an employee who left the packing line for 20 minutes without permission was warned but not fired. On March 27, 2006 an employee who repeatedly did not call and did not appear for work was warned but not fired. Many employees who failed to report to work and failed to call were warned but not fired. On April 12, 2006 an employee who came to work over one hour late without calling, and who had done this before, was warned but not fired. On June 1, 2006, one month before the events at issue herein, an employee who started lunch 17 minutes early, and who had done this before, was warned but not fired. Finally, Adames' uncontroverted testimony showed that he had left work early 4 or 5 times without permission from his foreman and he was not disciplined for doing this. Respondent did not offer any testimony to show how Echavarria Gonzalez' purported infraction differed from the misconduct described above. The evidence establishes that a single instance of misconduct related to attendance at work would not normally be cause for discharge by the company. Thus, I find that Respondent would not have discharged Echavarria Gonzalez but for his Union activities.
Conclusions of
Law
1. By discharging
Noel Echavarria Gonzalez because he solicited employees to join the
2. The General Counsel has not shown that Respondent engaged in any other violations of the Act.
Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The Respondent having discriminatorily discharged an employee, it must offer him reinstatement and make him whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits, computed on a quarterly basis from date of discharge to date of proper offer of reinstatement, less any net interim earnings, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as computed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommended.12
ORDER
The Respondent, Al
& John, inc.,
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating
against any employee for supporting Local 464A, United Food & Commercial
Workers Union, or any other union.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of the
Board's Order, offer Noel Echavarria Gonzalez full reinstatement to his former
job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or privileges previously
enjoyed.
(b) Make Noel Echavarria Gonzalez whole for
any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination
against him in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of the
Board's Order, remove from its files any reference to the unlawful discharge,
and within 3 days thereafter notify the employee in writing that this has been
done and that the discharge will not be used against him in any way.
(d) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request,
or such additional time as the Regional Director may allow for good cause
shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the Board or its agents, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records
and reports, and all other records, including an electronic copy of such
records if stored in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of
backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(e) Within 14 days
after service by the Region, post at its facility in
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
It is further ordered that the complaint is dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found.
Dated,
APPENDIX
Notice to Employees
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An
Agency of the
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this Notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
We will not discharge or otherwise discriminate against any of you for supporting Local 464A, United Food & Commercial Workers Union, or any other union.
We will not in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
We will, within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer Noel Echavarria Gonzalez full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
We will make Noel Echavarria Gonzalez whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from his discharge, less any net interim earnings, plus interest.
We will, within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from our files any reference to the unlawful discharge of Noel Echavarria Gonzalez, and we will, within 3 days thereafter, notify him in writing that this has been done and that the discharge will not be used against him in any way.
Al & John,
Inc. d/b/a Glen
Rock Ham