Trojan Battery Co.

TROJAN BATTERY COMPANY Trojan Battery Company and Teamsters Automotive Workers Local 495, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America. Case 21-CA-11469 November 19, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On July 20, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Herman Corenman issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the Administrative Law Judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions as modi- fied herein. We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's findings that the Respondent's coercive interrogation of employees concerning their union preference and threats to discharge them because of their union membership, activity, or preference were violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. We further agree that its discharge of employee Jaime Vidales was not violative of the Act. Contrary to the Administrative Law Judge, howev- er, we find that the Respondent's letter to its employees described in paragraph 11(a) of the complaint is violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.' Admonitions, as opposed to views, arguments, or opinions, to employees not to sign union authoriza- tion cards, are violative of the Act.2 We further find that the wage increase promised before the election and subsequently granted by Plant Manager Harold Tobison to employee Jorge Arceo, as described by the Administrative Law Judge in his Decision, was for the purpose of discouraging Arceo's support for the Union and therefore violative of Section 8(a)(1).3 i Pertinent portions of the letter, not fully reported by the Administrative Law Judge, are as follows, Don't sign anything regardless of the reasons advanced by the union organizers Remember they want Money-Your Money. So be careful! Drink their free drinks, eat their steak dinners and let them talk, but don't sign cards, and be prepared to vote "NO" or you will be paying for the free drinks and dinners Chairman Miller does not join in this finding. In his view, the letter could not reasonably be construed to be an employer order, but rather was no more than advice to employees that signing a card might lead to an obligation to pay dues. This was an expression of views, as Chairman Miller 425 Additionally, we find that Foreman Aranda's remarks to several employees, that he was going to discharge four or five workers because they were talking a lot about the Union, and that he knew which employees were in favor of the Union, constituted conduct giving the impression of surveil- lance, in violation of Section 8(a)(1). Accordingly, we shall modify the Administrative Law Judge's Order and the notice attached to his Decision to reflect these additional finding.4 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Trojan Battery Company, Santa Fe Springs, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Unlawfully threatening to discharge employees because of their union membership, preference, or activity. (b) Unlawfully interrogating employees concerning their union membership, sympathy, or preference. (c) Unlawfully directing employees not to sign union authorization cards. (d) Promising or granting increased wages to employees for the purpose of discouraging their support for the Union. (e) Unlawfully creating the impression that the Respondent is engaged in surveillance of the union activities of its employees. 2. Take the following affirmative action which, it is found, will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its premises, copies' of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 21, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu- ous places, including all places where notices to employees and supervisors are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. sees it, within the sanction of Sec 8(c) of the Act 2 See, e.g, Robert Meyer Hotel Company, Inc, d/b/a Robert Meyer Hotel, 154 NLRB 521,523 3 See, e.g., Murray Ohio Manufacturing Company, 128 NLRB 184 at 184 and 189 4 Rockingham Sleepwear, Inc, 188 NLRB 698; Colnu, Inc., and Fashtonit Trim, Inc, 144 NLRB 1395, 1405 5 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of, Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " 207 NLRB No. 70 426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our em- ployees concerning their union membership, preference, or activity. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge because of their union membership, preference, or activity. WE WILL NOT direct our employees not to sign union authorization cards. WE WILL NOT promise or grant increased wages to employees for the purpose of discouraging their support for the Union. WE WILL NOT create the impression of engaging in surveillance of the union activities of our employees. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist the Teamsters Automotive Workers, Local 495, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Help- ers of America, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, 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. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE HERMAN CORENMAN , Administrative Law Judge: The General Counsel issued a complaint in this proceeding on February 6, 1973, after a charge filed January 2, 1973, by Teamsters Automotive Workers Local 495, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein called the Union. The complaint alleges that Trojan Battery Company, herein called the Respondent, violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by alleged acts of interference, coercion, and restraint and the discharge of one employee . The case was tried before me at Los Angeles, California, on April 26 and 27, 1973. All parties were afforded the opportunity to produce evidence and to examine and cross-examine witnesses and to argue orally on the record. Posthearing briefs which have been filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record in the case ,- including my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The pleadings establish and I find the Respondent is a California corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of batteries at its plant located at Santa Fe Springs, California. The Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations described above , annually purchas- es and receives goods, materials, and supplies valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers located outside the State of California . I find that the Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. If. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED TROJAN BATTERY COMPANY (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compli- ance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Eastern Columbia Building, Room 600, 849 South Broadway, Los Angeles, California 90014, Telephone 213-688-5254. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background Organizational activities to unionize the Respondent's employees began in September 1972:1 Respondent's employee Jaime Vidales contacted Union Organizer Thomas O'Leary who gave him a quantity of union authorization cards to procure employee signatures and a quantity of booklets outlining the merits of the Union. 1 I am taking administrative notice that the Union filed a petition for representation in Case 21-RC-12907 with the Board's Region 21 on October 2, 1972, that a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election was entered into by the parties on November 1, 1972, and that an election held on December 12, 1972, in which challenged ballots affecting the election results had not yet been resolved at the time of the hearing in this case, but were later resolved and the Union certified on May 9, 1973. TROJAN BATTERY COMPANY 427 Vidales passed out the authorization cards to approximate- ly 40 employees for signature. B. Interference, Coercion, and Restraint Testimony, which I credit, was given by several rank- and-file employees in support of the General Counsel's complaint, alleging that in the months October through December 1972 Foreman Carlos Aranda2 at the Respon- dent's plant threatened employees with loss of employment and other reprisals if they did not abandon their support of and activities on behalf of the Union. Thus, employee Vidales testified credibly that in October or November 1972, in the presence of himself and employee Jose Almarez, he heard Foreman Aranda tell Almarez that he was going to fire anyone who joined the Union or wanted to join it. Employee Mario de Leon Gonzales credibly testified that Foreman Aranda in October 1972, in his office and in the presence of Luis Rojas and Gonzales, told him that if he signed in favor of the Union and if the Union did not come in it was better if he looked for work elsewhere. On an occasion 2 or 3 weeks later at his machine, Gonzales credibly testified that in the presence of himself and employee Jose Almarez, he heard Foreman Aranda tell another employee that "four or five workers of the factory, he was going to have to discharge them from work because they were talking a lot about the Union." Gonzales testified credibly that on this occasion Aranda named the employees he was thinking of discharg- ing as Jose Almarez, Mario de Leon Gonzales, Jaime Vidales, and Gabriel Portillo. Jorge Arceo credibly testified that about 1 month before the election at Aranda 's office Aranda told him and employee Jose Sosa, among other things, that he was "going to fire the guys who are for the Union." Arceo further testified credibly that on another occasion 1 or 2 weeks later, while he was at work on the assembly line and in the presence of employees Jose Almarez, Gabriel Portillo, and Francisco Mendez, Fore- man Aranda told the group that "the guys who are for the Union, he knows them, who they are, and he is going to fire them, the Union is no good." Arceo also credibly and without contradiction testified that former Plant Manager Harold Tobison '(present Plant Manager Art Sanchez' predecessor) before the election asked Arceo "if I worked for the Union and I told him, "No." Arceo replied, "That's good Jorge." Taking advantage, of the situation, Arceo credibly testified that he asked Tobison for a 5-cent raise and he received it on his next paycheck. Sergio Ramirez credibly testified that about 1 month before the election Aranda conversed with him while he was on the assembly line in the presence of Luis Rojas and Gonzales. Ramirez testified credibly that he told Aranda of the benefits of the Union, good insurance, one could take his children to the hospital without paying. Aranda replied that Ramirez "was crazy because the Union was the 2 I find that Carlos Aranda was a supervisor within the meaning of Sec. 2(11) of the Act. He responsibly supervised the plant employees, assigned them their 'tasks, effectively recommended the hire and discharge of employees, gave them permission to leave work early, excused absences, assigned overtime, checked timecards, and together with the plant manager planned the work to be performed. The fact that Aranda cast an unchallenged ballot at the December 12 election does not operate to affect Mafia," Ramirez also credibly testified that on a day following the election Aranda approached him on the assembly line and asked him how he voted. Ramirez replied that he had voted "No." Aranda told Ramirez he did not believe him because he had been a past member of the Union. Jose Almarez, currently in Respondent's employ for 10 years, credibly testified that in October 1972, Aranda approached him while he was working in the production line and told him that he was sure that Almarez had signed in favor of the Union and if the Union won he was going to discharge him. Almarez further testified credibly that Aranda asked him how many years he had worked there. When Almarez told him 10 years, Aranda told Almarez "it would feel bad if one was • discharged after 10 . years." Almarez further testified credibly that later in October 1972, Aranda repeated to him again while he was working on the production line that if the Union won, he was going to discharge him. The General Counsel's complaint alleges at paragraph 11(a) that on or about November 21, 1972, the Respondent issued a letter to all of its employees directing them not to sign union authorization cards, and alleges further at paragraph I1(b) that on or about November 25 and December 5, 1972, Respondent issued letters to its employees directing them to obtain written guarantees of promises from union officials. In support of the foregoing allegations, the General Counsel offered into evidence a letter dated November 21, 1972, from the Respondent to its employees containing preelection propaganda caution- ing the employees not to succumb to union promises, with the final admonition, "To protect yourself, get all the facts, and get all the union promises guaranteed in writing and signed by a union official-So be careful! Drink their free drinks, eat their steak dinners and let them talk, but don't sign cards, and be prepared to vote NO or you will be paying for the free drinks and dinners." The General Counsel also introduced into evidence a December 5, 1972, letter from the Respondent to its employees containing preelection propaganda. This December 5 letter suggested that the employees protect themselves from irresponsible promises by union officials by having the union officials sign their promises in writing. The letter suggested some promises which employees would have the union officials sign and guarantee in writing. Upon examination of these two election propaganda letters, I find that they are privileged by Section 8(c) of the Act as they do not contain threats of reprisal or force or promise of benefit . See Desert Laundry -A Corporation, 192 NLRB 1032. However, I find that the threats to discharge employees because of their union preference or activity uttered by Foreman Carlos Aranda to employees Almarez, Gonzales, Arceo, and Vidales, or in their presence, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act .3 I also find that Plant Manager Tobison's interrogation of my finding. Presto Manufacturing Company, 168 NLRB 1073, 1075 (1968), Duo-Bed Corporation, 172 NLRB 1581 , In. 1(1968). 3 In view of the detailed testimony of witnesses Almarez, Gonzales, Arceo, and Vidales concerning the threats of discharge made by Aranda. I credit their testimony over Aranda's flat general denials that he made such threats. 428 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employee Arceo if he worked for the Union, and Aranda's inquiry of employee Ramirez how he voted in the election violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. C. The Discharge of Jaime Vidales Vidales had been in the employ of the Respondent since December 5, 1970. He worked in the assembly department under the supervision of Foreman Carlos Aranda. Vidales, with two other workers, would compose a team of three men in the assembly of a battery. One member of the team is called the "assembler," or "stacker"; the other, the "burner"; and the third, the "balancer." The members of the team regularly interchange their functions after 4 hours during the course of a day's work. The assembler or stacker engages in the first operation in the assembly of the battery, and to that extent controls the number of batteries completed in a given time as the burner and the balancer cannot perform their function until the stacker performs his functions. Vidales began his activities in union organization in September 1972. He contacted Union Organizer Tom O'Leary at his office where O'Leary gave Vidales a quantity of union authorization cards and some union literature to pass out to the employees and to solicit their signature to the cards. Vidales would meet with O'Leary about once every 2 weeks to discuss the progress of the union organization work, and he would make weekly telephone contacts with O'Leary. Vidales also attended a union meeting at Santa Fe Springs, California, which was attended by approximately 45 of Respondent's employees, and which was presided by Union Organizers O'Leary and Joe Henderson. Vidales talked in favor of the Union daily at the Respondent's plant, and passed out union authoriza- tion cards to approximately 40 employees. It is clear from the evidence that the Respondent was aware of Vidales' union preference and activity. Additionally, Vidales was the union observer at the December 12, 1972, Board election. On December 23, 1972, Vidales asked to go home about midmorning. Foreman Aranda testified credibly that on this morning he noticed that Vidales was acting abnormal, that he appeared to be in a daze, staggered a bit, looked flushed and-his eyes were glassy. Aranda testified credibly that Vidales couldn't keep up with Gonzales who was "stacking" that morning. After the morning break period, Plant Manager Sanchez brought Vidales to Aranda and asked if he would excuse Vidales who wanted to leave early. Because the next workday would be a holiday, Aranda suggested that Vidales should stay till noon so he could qualify for the holiday pay .4 Vidales agreed to stay till noon when he was excused to leave. On December 26, 1972, the day after Christmas, Vidales reported for work. He worked as a "stacker" that morning. 4 To qualify for holiday pay under the then current policy of the Respondent, an employee was required to work at least 4 hours on the day preceding the holiday and 4 hours on the day after the holiday 5 Vidales testified that a line of 12-volt batteries is about 34 batteries. 6 Gonzales testified that Aranda did tell the people to work faster before the election, about two or three times a week, in fact, Gonzales testified that Aranda has told the people to work faster ever since he started working, but that Aranda did not tell him to work faster after the election. On the other hand, Arceo testified that Aranda did not ask him to work faster before the election, but he did ask him to work faster after the election, almost daily. Vidales testified that while so engaged in "stacking," Aranda "came and told me he wants more job I was doing." "I told him I am going to do what I can do." He said, "No you are going to do what I want you to do" and I said, "I am going to do what I can do." He said, "Well if you are not going to do what I want you to do, you are fired." And he said, "Stop; don't work." Vidales testified that Aranda then went to the office and returned in 10 minutes and told Vidales to "go pick your checks up." Vidales testified that at the time he was approached by Aranda he had worked on a line and a half.5 Gonzales was "burning" and Arceo was "balancing." After being told by Aranda to pick up his checks, Vidales went to the office of Plant Manager Sanchez. Vidales testified that Sanchez asked him what happened. Vidales testified further, "So I told him what happened," and he said, "You come over here and tell me something and Aranda told me another thing, so I think he doesn't want you over there, and I can't do anything about it." Vidales testified further that he had never been reprimanded or received a warning notice . Vidales testified further that before the election Aranda "used to come in and tell us [the group] you know, to work faster" about two times a week, but after the election he would tell only Vidales to work faster.6 Aranda testified that Vidales is off work frequently and has come to work with a hangover on several occasions. Aranda recalled one occasion in July or August 1972 where after lunch Vidales was unable to work and absented himself from his work station. Aranda found Vidales in the restroom unfit to work. Aranda told Vidales to remain in the restroom and lie down and he himself performed Vidales' work task the remainder of the day but credited him with working a full day. With reference to the events of December 26, 1972, which led to Vidales' discharge, Aranda testified that on "that morning, he was replacing another employee" who was off sick. Aranda testified that between the morning hours of 8 and 10 he noticed that Vidales had gone to the restroom twice. On that day Vidales was "stacking," "so he was supposed to give work to the other two men who were just standing idly by, namely, Gonzales who was `burning' and Arceo who presumably was `balancing.' " Gonzales and Arceo, Aranda testified, were waiting for some work to be put on the table. After the midmorning 10-minute break period, Aranda approached Vidales. Aranda testified as follows: I told him that this particular kind of battery was behind, he was lagging, and I expected him about 12 noon to have the production that we had scheduled for him. So then, he told me he was going to make what he thought he was going to give me and for me to be Arceo testified that Aranda would say, "We have to make a certain number of battens"-if they could not do this, Aranda said, "Punch your card and go home." Employee Ramirez testified that before the question of the Union came up he was never urged to work faster It was after the election that he was urged to work faster, and this occurred about twice a week for many weeks because he was told, "He walked around a great deal." Ramirez testified that the people who told him to work faster were Carlos Aranda, Luis Rojas (the assistant foreman), and the last time, Art Sanchez, the plant manager. TROJAN BATTERY COMPANY 429 satisfied with that . And so he started yelling at me and waiving at me with his arms, like insulting me there in front of everybody. He told me he was going to give me 36-what was it-three and one-half lines, which amounts to about some 40-odd batteries and he said, "Well, now because you asked me, I am going to make less. I am just going to make 36 and be satisfied. So I told him "That's not the way to talk back." I says, "I talk to you decently and I expect you to talk back the proper way. "So then he says, You are nothing here- you don't have to tell me nothing. So then he turned around and started putting his rubber gloves on to go back to work, and I told him, "Don't work at all-I'll show you who I am here." Aranda testified further, "Everybody was staring at me and I was being ridiculous in front of everybody-I was being harassed and degraded in front of everybody there." Aranda testified he then punched Vidales' timecard at the timeclock, gave it to Plant Manager Sanchez, and recommended Vidales for dismissal . Aranda told Sanchez that Vidales was not performing his duties properly and "He was hollering at me and he was insubordinate, he didn't want to do what I told him." Aranda then walked back to the assembly department and told Vidales he should talk to Sanchez. Corroborating Aranda's version of his reasons for discharging Vidales, Sanchez testified credibly that about 10 a.m. on that day Aranda came to his office with Vidales' timecard and recommended that Vidales be fired. When Sanchez inquired what had happened, Aranda told him that Vidales was on slowdown production and, when he tried to hold a conversation with Vidales to explain to him the reason for increasing production , that Vidales told him he was going as fast as he could and that he wasn't going to any more, and now that he asked he was going to do less and that he would have to be satisfied with this. And Vidales said to Aranda, "Who the hell do you think you are?" Sanchez credibly testified he then told Aranda to send him to his office . On his arrival, Sanchez credibly testified he listened to Vidales who told him he had been "working the best he could," he "was working good" in his opinion. Sanchez further testified credibly that Vidales did not promise he would try to do better. Sanchez credibly testified further as follows: "I had seen his actions in the past. I had seen his trips back to the bathroom. I had seen his physical condition on other occasions . I was well aware of his actions in the past, and I felt that he was extremely capable of being insubordinate . After looking at both stories, I decided to follow the recommendation of Charles Aranda." Gonzales, who was the "burner" teamed up with Vidales on December 26, testified that on that occasion , Vidales worked "the same as always"; that he was not working any slower that day than he did normally; that Vidales worked no slower on the job than Gonzales does when he is performing it; that the batteries were coming to him as a "burner" no less than usual; and that Vidales' work as a stacker was no slower than the other employees. Arceo, who also was teamed up with Gonzales and Vidales on the day Vidales was terminated , testified that Vidales was not working any slower than usual; he was working "regular about the same as the other guys." Neither Gonzales nor Arceo, witnesses called by the General Counsel, who were teamed up with Vidales on the day of his discharge , were questioned concerning the conversation between Aranda and Vidales that led to Vidales' discharge. Luis Rojas, assistant foreman, who is a compadre (Spanish for godfather) of Aranda, testified that he was present on the morning of Vidales ' discharge. He testified he observed that Arceo was sitting down and Gonzales was standing up with his arms crossed across his chest looking at Rojas and Aranda while Vidales was walking around talking to other employees. Rojas testified he was not present when Aranda went up and talked to Vidales, but was present later when Aranda returned and told Vidales to go to the office. Rojas testified that when he got back after the coffeebreak he asked Gonzales what was going on. Gonzales told him that Aranda and Vidales had had a discussion and that Aranda had gone to the office to fire him. Rojas testified credibly and without contradiction that Gonzales told him he would give him two to one that Vidales was going to get fired. Rojas further testified that Gonzales told him that Vidales was just taking his time and that Gonzales didn't want to be blamed. D. Analysis and Conclusionary Finding on Vidales' Discharge Although the record is clear that the Respondent was hostile to union organization, I find that Aranda dis- charged Vidales for his insubordinate conduct when he urged Aranda to produce more work . I credit the testimony of Aranda and Rojas that Vidales was not giving his full attention to his job as "stacker" with the consequence that Gonzales and Arceo were standing idly by, waiting on Vidales. The record is clear and I find that Aranda's conduct in urging Vidales to get out more production of batteries was not intended to provoke him, but was a legitimate instruction which was commonly employed by Aranda to speed up production . It is significant that General Counsel's witnesses, Gonzales and Arceo, who were present when Aranda and Vidales engaged in the conversation which led to Vidales' discharge, were not called upon to testify to the remarks made by Aranda and Vidales. I credit the testimony of Rojas and Aranda who testified that Gonzales and Arceo were standing idly by because Vidales, who was "stacking," had not placed any work on the machine for them to work on . I am persuaded that Aranda entertained no personal animosity toward Vidales, as only 3 days earlier, on December 23, Aranda suggested to Vidales that he work till noon on that day so he could draw pay for the Christmas holiday when it appeared that Vidales wanted to leave work at midmorning before he had worked 4 hours. I find that when Aranda urged Vidales to get out more production , on December 26, Vidales provoked Aranda by telling him that he would now get less work and insulted Aranda and demeaned his authority as testified by Aranda. It was this conduct, and not Vidales' union activity, that resulted in his discharge which Plant Manager Sanchez approved. I therefore find that there is no merit to the complaint's 430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD allegation that the discharge of Jaime Vidales violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce 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 coercively interrogating employees concerning their union preference and by threatening employees with discharge because of their union membership, activity, or preference, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of their rights guaran- teed in Section 7 of the Act, and has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. Respondent's letters to its employees described in paragraphs 11(a) and (b) of the complaint are not violative of the Act. 5. Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(3) or (1) of the Act by discharging Jaime Vidales from his employment and by refusing to reinstate him. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. [Recommended Order omitted from publication.]