Champa Linen Service Co.

798 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Champa Linen Service Company and Dry Cleaning and Laundry Workers, Local Union No. 304. Case 27-CA-2521 June 30, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND ZAGORIA On January 15, 1969, Trial Examiner David F. Doyle issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting memorandum of law. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of theTrial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision and the entire record in the case, including the Respondent's exceptions and memorandum, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions,' and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the limited modifications indicated herein.' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor The Respondent's exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision are in large part directed to credibility resolutions of the Trial Examiner. We will not overrule a Trial Examiner's resolutions as to credibility unless a clear preponderance of all relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Such a conclusion is not warranted here. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C.A. 3). 9'he Respondent's contention that the Trial Examiner erred in failing to allow a hearing on the issue of appropriateness of the unit is without merit. On April 16, 1968, the Board by telegraphic order denied the Respondent's request for review of the Regional Director's Decision and Direction of Election. The Board's Rules and Regulations, Sec 102.67 provide that denial of a request for review shall preclude rehtigation of issues raised by the Regional Director's Decision in any subsequent related unfair labor practice proceeding . The Respondent's contention that the Trial Examiner erred in failing to allow a hearing on issues raised by the objections to conduct of an election is also unmeritorious The Respondent failed to request review of the Regional Director's Supplemental Decision The Board's Rules and Regulations further provide that failure to request review of a Regional Director's Decision shall preclude a party from relitigating issues which could have been raised at the representation proceeding in a subsequent unfair labor practice proceeding Rules and Regulations, Sec. 102.67 and 102.69(c). 'We note and correct the following inadvertent errors in the Trial Examiner's Decision which do not affect the result in this case . Demeter did attempt to keep certain of her union activities secret . Vice president 177 NLRB No. 69 Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Champa Linen Service Company, Denver, Colorado, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in and activities on behalf of Dry Cleaning and Laundry Workers, Local Union No. 304, or any other labor organization of its employees by discharging employees or transferring employees or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any other terms or conditions of employment. (b) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act, by interrogating employees about their union affiliation and activities; by threatening employees with the loss of their jobs if they aid or assist the Union; by making abusive statements to employees because of their union activities; by threatening employees with physical harm because of their assistance to the Union; or by engaging in surveillance of employees' union activities. (c) Making unilateral changes in employees' working conditions, or otherwise refusing to bargain collectively with Dry Cleaning and Laundry Workers, Local Union No. 304, as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees in the following appropriate unit: All laundry production and maintenance employees employed at its 2033 Champa Street, Denver, Colorado location, but excluding all office clerical employees, route drivers, salesmen, and all guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization to form labor organizations, to join or assist Dry Cleaning and Laundry Workers, Local Union No. 304, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Dry Cleaning and Laundry Workers, Local Union No. Zimmerman testified that he personally saw Demeter hit another employee. We rewrite the Order and Notice , to conform more accurately with the findings and conclusions We do not adopt No 4,(6), of the Trial Examiner's Conclusions of Law, as the record contains no supporting evidence CHAMPA LINEN SERVICE COMPANY 799 304 as the exclusive representative of the employees in the above-described appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employment, and embody in a signed agreement any understanding reached. (b) Resume forthwith the supplying of free coffee to unit employees, and, if Respondent seeks to discontinue said service, propose such discontinuance to the Union and bargain on that subject with the Union. (c) Offer Flora M. Demeter and Margaret Martinez immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of wages they may have suffered as a result of the Respondent's discrimination against them, in the manner set forth in the section of the Trial Examiner's Decision entitled "The Remedy." (d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, contract and contract bids, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (e) Notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (f) Post at its plant in Denver, Colorado, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 27, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (g) Notify the Regional Director for Region 27, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 'In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order" the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership of any of our employees in Dry Cleaning and Laundry Workers, Local Union No. 304, or any other union, by discharging employees or transferring employees or in any other manner discriminating against them in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any terms or conditions of employment. WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act, by interrogating employees about their union affiliation and activities; by threatening employees with the loss of their jobs if they aid or assist the Union; by making abusive statements to employees because of their union activities; by threatening employees with physical harm because of their assistance to the Union; or by engaging in surveillance of employees' union activities. WE WILL offer Flora M. Demeter and Margaret Martinez full and immediate reinstatment to their former positions or ones substantially equivalent thereto without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed. WE WILL make whole Flora M. Demeter and Margaret Martinez for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of our discrimination against them. WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with Dry Cleaning and Laundry Workers, Local Union No. 304 as the exclusive bargaining representative of our employees in the appropriate unit described below, concerning rates of pay, wages, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employment, and we will embody in a signed agreement any understanding reached. The bargaining unit is: All laundry production and maintenance employees employed by the Company at its 2033 Champa Street, Denver, Colorado location, but excluding all office clerical employees, route drivers, salesmen and all guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. WE WILL resume forthwith the supplying of free coffee to employees, and, if we seek to discontinue said service, we will propose such discontinuance to the Union and bargain on that subject with the Union. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Dry Cleaning and Laundry Workers, Local Union No. 304 or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. WE WILL notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. 800 Dated By DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CHAMPA LINEN SERVICE COMPANY (Employer) (Representative) (Title) Ben Elderman Harry Zimmerman Troy McCasland Rose Piro Harriet Woodruff This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 260 New Custom House, 721 19th Street, Denver, Colorado 80202, Telephone 303-297-3551. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE DAVID F. DOYLE, Trial Examiner : This proceeding, with the parties represented by counsel named above, was heard by me in Denver, Colorado, on September 24 and 25, 1968, on complaint of the General Counsel and answer of the Respondent . The issues litigated were : whether the Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act by certain conduct described hereinafter.' At the hearing the parties were represented by counsel and were afforded full opportunity to present evidence, examine and cross-examine witnesses and to present arguments and briefs on the issues. Upon the entire record, and my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The Company is a Colorado corporation with its principal place of business and plant at 2033 Champa Street, Denver, Colorado, where it engages in the business of linen rental, service and supply . In the course of its business operations the Company annually purchases, transfers, and delivers to its Denver, Colorado place of business goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000. These goods and materials are transported to Denver directly from States of the United States other than the State of Colorado. It is conceded by the Company, and I find, that at all times material herein the Company has been , and is, an employer engaged in commerce and in the operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Company also admits in the pleadings that the following named persons occupied the positions set opposite their respective names and are agents of the Company and are supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act: 'In this Decision, Champa Linen Service Company is referred to as the Respondent or the Company; Dry Cleaning and Laundry Workers, Local Union No 304, as the Union; the National Labor Relations Board, as the Board; the General Counsel of the Board and his representatives at the hearing, as the General Counsel; and the Labor Management Relations Act, as amended, as the Act. The original charge in this proceeding was filed on June 19 and an amended charge was filed on August 1 The complaint herein was issued by the Regional Director, Region 27, on July 31, and the complaint was amended on August 27 by the said Regional Director. It should be noted that all dates in this Decision are in the year 1968 unless specified otherwise. Christine Capra President Vice President General Superintendent Supervisor - Flat work and Finish Department Supervisor - Seamstress Department Supervisor - Order Department Route Supervisor Route Supervisor Route Supervisor John Cuifi Pete Dyle Angelo Melaragno II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED It is admitted in the pleadings, and I find, that the Union is now, and at all times material herein has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issues The complaint and its amendment alleged that the Company, by its officers and supervisors, violated the Act as follows: 1. Interfered with, restrained, and coerced the Company's employees by coercive statements of reprisal, loss of employment, physical harm, verbal abuse, promises of benefits, denial of benefits previously provided, and acts of surveillance because of the union activities of the employees. 2. Discriminatorily transferred and then discharged Flora Demeter and discriminatorily transferred Margaret Martinez to less desirable work. 3. Refused to bargain with the Union which at the time of the refusal was the duly elected collective-bargaining agent of the employees and unilaterally stopped a free coffee service previously furnished to the employees. The duly filed answer of the Company denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. B. Undisputed Facts It is undisputed that in February 1968 employees of the Company began the discussion of affiliation with the Union. In the second week of February, employee Flora Demeter discussed the matter with Edward F. Hogan, secretary-treasurer of the Union. At this meeting it was decided that the organizational campaign would take the form of having authorization cards signed by the employees. Demeter received the cards from Hogan and they were distributed to the employees. Also during the months of February, March and April, the union officers held approximately four meetings with the employees. Thereafter, the Union petitioned the Board for an election, and on April 23 an election by secret ballot was conducted under the supervision of the Regional Director (Region 27) of the Board. The Union was selected as the bargaining representative of the employees by the following vote: Votes cast for petitioner (Union) - 35; votes cast against petitioner (Union) - 22. The appropriate unit in which the election above was conducted is described as follows: All laundry production and maintenance employees employed by the Company at its 2033 Champa Street, Denver, Colorado location, but excluding office clerical employees, route drivers, salesmen, and all guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in CHAMPA LINEN SERVICE COMPANY 801 the Act. It is undisputed that on June 5 the Regional Director aforesaid certified the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in this appropriate unit. Upon the undisputed facts above, I find that the unit set forth above is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining and that the Union is the duly designated collective-bargaining representative of said employees. It is likewise undisputed that shortly after the election, Edward F. Hogan, secretary-treasurer of the Union, requested that the Company start collective- bargaining negotiations with the Union. On June 14, Eric Zimmerman, vice president of the Company, in a letter to Hogan stated that the Company believed that the decisions of the Board in regard to the appropriate unit and the Board's refusal to set aside the election were erroneous and that it was exercising its right to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals by refusing to bargain with the Union. Upon the above undisputed evidence it is found that the Company has refused to bargain with the Union and has thereby violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. As will also appear later herein, it is undisputed that after the election the Company discontinued providing free coffee to the employees without consulting the Union, thereby committing an additional violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by its unilateral change of this working condition. C. The Discriminatory Transfer and Subsequent Discharge of Demeter, and the Discriminatory Transfer of Martinez Employee Flora Demeter testified credibly that she was among the employees who first discussed joining the Union and that it was she who first received the authorization cards from Hogan, the secretary-treasurer of the Union. Demeter testified that she made no attempt to keep her activity on behalf of the Union a secret and she soon noticed that Rose Piro, her supervisor, began to ignore her. On approximately March 29, Ben Elderman, president of the Company, came to her and said that he was going to put her to work "in the dirty filth, you dirty Mexican." Elderman called McCasland, the plant superintendent, and told him to transfer Demeter from the mangle, where she was working, to the dirty linen room upstairs where her task was to sort the soiled linen which came into the plant. When she was installed in the dirty linen room , Elderman came up there and told her that she belonged in the "filthy" linen room because she was a troublemaker. On several occasions Elderman also subjected Demeter to verbal abuse , calling her a dirty Mexican and saying she belonged among "the filth." Employee Demeter testified that she was called to Elderman's office over the loudspeaker on April 1. When she reached Elderman's office, she found present Zimmerman, Company vice president, Leroy Cooper, who is Zimmerman's brother-in-law , and employee Nina Villano, with Elderman . Elderman started off by asking Demeter what Hogan, the union representative was going to do for her. Then Elderman told Villano that she should take Demeter outside and "beat the . out of her." Elderman said the reason that he had put Demeter upstairs was because he was afraid the rest of the employees would knife her in the back and that she should go see Hogan and see what he could do for her. Elderman then said that employee Nina Villano had complained that Demeter had called her on the phone late the previous night and berated her because she would not join the Union. A few days later, Demeter was called to Elderman's office a second time and on this occasion Elderman threatened that he would replace all the employees with "school kids" and asked what Hogan, the union official, could do about getting the employees jobs. Elderman also asked Demeter, if she was dissatisfied, why she had not complained to him instead of going to the Union. Employee Margaret Martinez testified credibly that she had attended a union meeting on April 8 at which she was chosen to serve as the Union' s observer in the election scheduled to be held later in the month. On the day before the election, Elderman told Martinez that she was being transferred from the department, in which she wrapped clean linen for delivery, to the soiled linen department upstairs, the same department as Demeter . Martinez had been wrapping the clean linen for delivery for approximately 9 years previously. Martinez said that she did not want to go upstairs and that he could fire her, if he chose. Elderman called to Chris Capra, a supervisor, and asked the latter to witness the fact that he wanted to transfer Martinez but that Martinez had said she would not accept the job and that she would quit. That evening Elderman waited at the timeclock for Martinez and said to her that Hogan, the union official , was outside the plant and that Martinez should tell Hogan to get her a job. On the following day, Martinez was transferred upstairs and Elderman told her that he did not want her coming downstairs and talking to the other employees. When Martinez was transferred to the dirty linen department, employee Rose Proctor was transferred to the wrapping of clean linen . On April 23, Rose Proctor and Margaret Valdez acted as observers for the Union in the Board-conducted election. After the election which the Union won, Elderman told Margaret Valdez that she was "a bitch" and also said that he hoped the girls "are satisfied, you dirty Mexicans." D. The Discontinuance of Free Coffee On the day after the election, Elderman came to the room which the employees used as a lunchroom at noontime, and announced to them that he was removing the coffee urn that had previously been provided by the Company and that he was stopping the serving of free coffee. According to employee Proctor , he said to the employees, "let Hogan buy your coffee." Employee Allen McCasland, the son of plant superintendent McCasland, who is an employee in the plant, corroborated the testimony of Demeter. He testified that he overheard two or three conversations between Elderman and Demeter approximately a week after Demeter had been transferred to the soiled linen department and that those conversations were of an abusive nature in that Elderman asked Demeter how she liked working in the "filth" and called Demeter a Mexican, and on one occasion referred to Demeter as a "bitch." McCasland also testified that in one of these conversations, Elderman referred to Demeter as the "Union instigator." Allen McCasland testified in a most forthright manner. Because of his father's supervisory capacity, Allen McCasland's testimony is especially persuasive. I credit his testimony fully. The testimony of employee Carl Peiz was also corroborative of Demeter's testimony of Elderman's abusive conduct toward her . Employee Peiz also testified 802 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that on a Saturday , approximately a week before the election, he was in the plant' s head office talking to his father on the company telephone . During this conversation he told his father that he had obtained many authorization cards from employees for the Union and that Elderman was trying to scare employees out of voting for the Union in the election . At that moment he heard another phone slam down and soon Elderman came out of his office and approached Peiz. When Peiz hung up the phone, Elderman said, "I heard everything you said." Peiz replied, "Okay," and walked out of the office. Elderman followed after Peiz and told him that he was going to be out of a job because the Company was going to fire Peiz, and his wife, who was also employed at the Company, if the Union won the election. Employee Margaret Valdez testified that after she had served as an observer for the Union at the election, Elderman said to her, "I hope you' re satisfied you dirty Mexican." E. The Discharge of Employee Demeter Employee Demeter testified that she was discharged on July 24 by Harry Zimmerman , vice president of the Company. After she had been at work about a half hour on this morning, she was summoned to the main office by the loudspeaker . There Zimmerman met her and told her that he had her check ready for her. And he asked her to sign a particular card. Zimmerman said that she was not satisfied and "putting it out for the Company, so the Company was not satisfied with her and putting out for her either." Demeter refused to sign the card which was proffered to her and Zimmerman refused to elaborate any further on the reasons for her discharge. F. The Testimony Offered by the Company Zimmerman , vice president of the Company, was called as a witness on its behalf. He had assigned a variety of reasons for the discharge of Demeter. He said that she was discharged because (1) she fought and argued with the other girls, (2) her work was unsatisfactory because she refused to take orders, (3) she violated regulations by turning off the conveyor belts from the soiled linen room, (4) she refused to clean the restroom in the soiled linen department, (5) she threw red napkins in with white linen which caused red dye to run into the white materials, (6) she appropriated for her own use silverware which came in the dirty linen she was sorting. These reasons were disclosed as specious pretexts by the testimony of other witnesses presented by the Company and by the cross-examination of Zimmerman. In the course of his cross-examination, Zimmerman stated that, although he discharged Demeter because she violated rules by stopping the conveyor belt and argued and fought with the other girls, that he personally never saw her violate any of the company rules nor had he ever seen or heard Demeter being in any arguments or fights with other employees. Zimmerman also admitted that he told Demeter that her work was not satisfactory, but counsel for the Company stipulated that on May 4 Demeter was given a 5-cent-an-hour wage increase . Also, in the course of his testimony, Elderman admitted that Demeter was a good worker, until shortly before the election, when she became very mean and started to throw things around. Demeter testified that she had never received any individual warnings about poor work or any deficiencies on her part and no company official controverted her testimony on this point. Employee Katherine Stieb testified credibly that Plant Superintendent McCasland had told Stieb that Demeter was a good worker and that she missed very few days at work. The plant superintendent was not called by the Company to testify to this point. As to the matter of cleaning the restroom in the soiled linen department, Demeter testified that when her supervisor, Agular, asked her to clean up the restroom on one occasion, she refused , as did employee Margaret Martinez . This matter seems to be of little moment inasmuch as employee Mary Berg testified that she volunteered to keep the restroom clean since she used it. Employee Katherine Stieb also testified that she cleaned the restroom on some occasions and that if she missed it Mary Berg did it. Since these employees voluntarily cleaned the small restroom used by all the employees on the second floor, it appears to have been no cause of controversy or friction among the employees or with management . Supervisor Agular testified that since Stieb and Berg cleaned up the restrooms , he never reported the refusal of Demeter or Martinez to management. Zimmerman's contention that Demeter violated rules by shutting off the conveyor belt in the dirty linen room also appears to be a pretext in view of the fact that Demeter testified that the switch was at the end of the conveyor belt where she worked and when the girls working on the line fell behind the conveyor belt, they would ask her to shut off the line for a moment while they caught up . These delays occurred no more than once or twice a day and lasted for no longer than a minute or two. Supervisor Agular confirmed this testimony of Demeter. He stated that he considered Demeter a good worker and that he had cautioned the girls to take care in separating red colored linen from white linen because of the danger of having the red dye run into the white. He said that he had given them instructions to shut down the conveyor belt at any time they thought that red material had been mixed with the white. In this way such mistakes could be corrected. Agular also testified that if he saw one of the girls make a mistake, and put red linen with white linen, that he would order that the conveyor belt be stopped and the error corrected . If, in fact, some red linen became mixed with the white, Agular testified that he had no way of knowing which one of the girls had made the error. There were three girls working on each side of the conveyor belt, so Agular or no one else could determine which one had erred in the matter, except when the observer actually saw the mistake. Zimmerman testified that a final act of Demeter leading to her discharge was her having a dispute with employee Mary Berg. The Company did not call Berg to testify. Zimmerman admitted that at the time he discharged Demeter he did not mention her dispute with Berg. It is clear that Zimmerman did not attempt to ascertain the facts of this dispute, because he admitted that he had never spoken with Berg about the incident, and had spoken only a few words to Berg in the entire course of her employment. The Company' s claim that Demeter appropriated to her own use some silverware which was included in the soiled linen by mistake, a charge which Demeter denied, likewise appears to be an unfounded accusation. President Ben Elderman was called as an adverse witness by the General Counsel. In the course of his testimony, he explained that he discontinued the coffee service because on the day of the election , after it was announced that the Union had won the election, the CHAMPA LINEN SERVICE COMPANY employees "threw the coffee all around the lunchroom" in their elation over the Union's success. Employee David Sena testified that he was the maintenance man who took care of the lunchroom and he was the man who made the coffee in the coffee urn and kept the premises clean . He testified that on several occasions he complained to Mr . Zimmerman that the employees sometimes dribbled or spilled coffee on the floor and that they did not clean up things after they used the facilities. Finally, he took the coffee urn out of the lunchroom on the orders of Zimmerman . In the course of his cross-examination, Sena stated that each of the girls provided her own cup and on some occasions they did not wash their own cups . The tenor of Sena's testimony was that on the day of the election and the day or two thereafter there occurred no unusual "throwing around" of coffee. CONCLUDING FINDINGS The testimony of the employees in this case was unusually impressive . They were young ladies who evidently possessed no special skills and were required by circumstances to perform the arduous work of a launderer, or they were older ladies , like Demeter, who were required to work years after most women are employed at household tasks . However, these ladies, without exception, testified in a sincere and candid manner. This applies to those who are called by the Company in its defense . In reality, their truthfulness and candor was not any help to the Company . I credit completely the testimony of the employees mentioned in the recital of testimony above. Their testimonies were mutually corroborative to the point that their composite testimony cannot be denied. On the other hand, Elderman, president of the Company, while on the witness stand , found it impossible to conceal his hostility and rancor toward the employees who had assisted the Union . Even as he protested his innocence, the vehemence of his words, and sometimes his contemptuous tone , confirmed the testimony of the employees about Elderman. Harry Zimmerman, vice president of the Company, appeared to harbor no resentment against the employees for their union activity, but the multiple reasons he furnished for the discharge of Demeter were disclosed as flimsy pretexts , by his own cross-examination , the testimony of credited employees and the totality of the evidence. Therefore, upon the testimony of the employees, I find that the Company has committed unfair labor practices as follows: 1. It has interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act by (1) interrogating employees about their union affiliation and activities; (2) threatening employees with loss of their jobs if they aided or assisted the Union ; (3) made abusive statements to employees because of their union activities; (4) eavesdropped on an employee' s phone conversation to determine if he was engaging in union activities; (5) threatened an employee with physical harm because of her assistance to the Union ; (6) promised employees benefits if they did not join the Union or vote for the Union in an election. 2. Discriminatorily discharged Flora Demeter because she had engaged in union activities and discriminatorily transferred Flora Demeter and Margaret Martinez because of their union activity in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. 803 3. Upon the uncontroverted testimony of employees and documentary evidence in the case, it has been found previously and is restated here, that the Company has refused to bargain with the Union , the duly selected collective-bargaining representative of the Company's employees in an appropriate unit , and has also refused to bargain by unilaterally discontinuing the service of free coffee to the employees in the lunchroom at noontime, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Company set forth in Section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company described in Section I, above , have a close, intimate and substantial relation to trade, traffic and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Since it has been found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Since it has been found that the Respondent unlawfully discharged employee Flora Demeter on July 4 , it will be recommended that the Respondent offer to her immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position, which she held prior to her discriminatory transfer hereafter mentioned, without prejudice to her seniority and other rights and privileges, discharging if necessary any other employee hired since March 29 to fill the position of the said employee . Since it has also been found that Margaret Martinez was discriminatorily transferred from her position of wrapping clean linen to the soiled linen department on April 22, it will also be recommended that employee Martinez be reinstated to her position in the clean linen wrapping department, without prejudice to her seniority and other rights and privileges, discharging if necessary any other employee hired since said date to fill the position of this employee. It will be further recommended that the Respondent make whole Flora Demeter and Margaret Martinez for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them , by payment to each of a sum of money equivalent to that which each would have normally earned as wages from the date of their discriminatory transfer and discharge in the case of Demeter, and from the date of her discriminatory transfer in the case of Martinez , to the date of their reinstatment to their former positions , less any net earnings during said period. Said backpay is to be computed in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest thereon , as computed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Since it has been found that the Company has engaged in unfair labor practices by refusing to bargain collectively with the certified representative of its employees in an appropriate unit, I will recommend that the Company cease and desist therefrom and, upon request , bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit. Having found that the Company has also refused to bargain with the Union as the chosen representative of its 804 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees in the appropriate unit by discontinuing the supplying of free coffee to the employees in the lunchroom at noontime, it will be recommended that the Company resume forthwith the supplying of free coffee to the employees, as supplied prior to the election of April 23, and, if the Company seeks to discontinue said service, that the Company propose such discontinuance to the Union and bargain on that subject with the Union as a condition of employment as heretofore recommended. Because the nature and_ extent of the unfair labor practices engaged in by Respondent evinces an attitude of rejection to the purposes of the Act in general, I deem it necessary to recommend that the Respondent cease and desist from in any other manner infringing upon the rights of employees guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions and upon the entire record in the case, I hereby make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Champa Linen Service Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Dry Cleaning and Laundry Workers, Local Union No. 304 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By transferring and discharging Flora M. Demeter and transferring Margaret Martinez because of their activities on behalf of the above-named Union and for the purpose of discouraging membership in and activity on behalf of the above-named Union, Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 4. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees by (1) interrogating employees about their union affiliation and activities ; (2) threatening employees with the loss of their jobs if they aided or assisted the Union; (3) made abusive statements to employees because of their union activities; (4) engaged in surveillance of an employee' s union activities; (5) threatened an employee with physical harm because of her assistance to the Union; (6) promised employees benefits if they did not join or vote for the Union, the Company has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. By refusing to bargain with the Union as the duly selected collective-bargaining representative of the Company's employees in an appropriate unit and by unilaterally changing the employees' working conditions, the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommended Order omitted from publication.]