Meat Packers International

294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Newton Joseph, d/b/a Meat Packers International and Meat Cutters Local No. 421 , Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO and Vincent Salazar. Cases 21- CA-13249 and 21-CA-13396 June 29, 1976 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND PENELLO On August 6, 1975, Administrative Law Judge James T. Rasbury issued the attached decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs and each filed an answering brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions z of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified below. 1. We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's findings that throughout the course of the union or- ganizational campaign, Respondent demonstrated its hostility toward the Union and its supporters by en- gaging in numerous acts of interrogation and threats of job loss and store closure, and by discharging ap- proximately 12 employees because of their union ac- tivity in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. We disagree, however, with his conclusion that evi- dence pertaining to Raul Arias fails to establish that he was discharged. The discrimination against Raul Arias is consistent with the above-described pattern of extensive unfair labor practices. These flagrantly unlawful acts committed by Respondent, coupled with the events leading to the termination of Arias, compel us to disagree with the Administrative Law i The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to over- rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3, 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings 2 In the absence of exceptions thereto , we adopt, pro forma, the Adminis- trative Law Judge's rationale with respect to Mansion House Center Manage- ment Corporation, 190 NLRB 437 (1971), enfd 473 F 2d 471 (C A 8, 1973) We note that the Administrative Law Judge inadvertently stated that Antonio Mercado Vasquez was discharged on "1/16/74"The record shows that he was discharged on January 16, 1975 Judge's conclusion that Arias' termination was law- ful. Arias commenced employment with Respondent on November 27, 1974. He was employed as a count- erman on a full-time basis and worked regularly on weekdays. During the early part of December, Respondent's owner, Newton Joseph, told Arias that if he signed a union card he would be the first to go. On December 7, Arias did sign a union authorization card, and on December 13 Joseph told Arias that he would be laid off. Arias inquired as to the reason and Joseph responded, "I'm scared of you guys because you guys can get the union in." After Arias stated that he did not know anything about the Union, Jo- seph agreed to give him another chance by allowing Arias to work the next day, a Saturday. At the time Joseph said, "I don't want no more of this back-stab- bing, trying to get the union in." Arias reported for work the next day, and Joseph ordered him to dis- tribute pamphlets instead of allowing him to perform his normal counter duties. At the conclusion of the workday, he was told to "come in next Saturday." Arias did not work the next Saturday due to illness, and when he picked up a paycheck shortly thereafter he was not told to come back. Arias testified that he has not gone back to work for Respondent since that time. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the aforementioned evidence fails to establish that Arias was discharged and that it establishes nothing more than a threat by Respondent.' Even ignoring Respondent's admissions and accepting Arias' testi- mony, it is clear that Arias was in fact discharged on December 13 for discriminatory reasons. The "sec- ond chance" afforded him was illusory at best, for after December 13 he was no longer a full-time em- ployee working weekdays, since his hours and work- ing conditions were drastically changed. After his talk with Joseph on December 13, Arias became es- sentially a casual part-time employee, and no longer had regularly scheduled hours. Thus, whether Arias was specifically told that he was discharged, or as- sumed that he was, is of little consequence, for any assumption on his part that he was no longer em- ployed as a full-time counterman would have been reasonable under the circumstances. In view of the above, we find that Arias was dis- criminated against on December 13 when he was told in effect that he was no longer a full-time employee. In light of our finding, we find it unnecessary to con- sider whether Joseph's statement to Arias on Decem- ber 13, that he could work only if he abandoned his 3 The record contains an admission by Joseph that he discharged Arias Joseph testified initially that he discharged Arias because Arias could not read the scales At a later point in his testimony, Joseph stated that he discharged Arias because Arias was not conscientious 225 NLRB No. 51 MEAT PACKERS INTERNATIONAL 295 union activities, amounted to a constructive dis- charge.4 2. The Administrative Law Judge found, inter alia, and we agree, that the Union represented a majority of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit in Respondent's Pacoima store, that the Union made a lawful request for recognition which was denied, that Respondent has systematically sought to dissipate the Union's strength and membership, and that Re- spondent should recognize and bargain with the Union.5 We also believe that it would be appropriate to find a violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act in the circumstances of this case even though the complaint did not specifically allege such a violation. The record shows that paragraph 6 of the com- plaint did allege, inter alia, that a majority of employ- ees in the appropriate unit "designated or selected the Union as their representative for the purposes of collective-bargaining with Respondent [and] . . . on or about January 8, 1975, and continuing to date, the Union has requested that Respondent recognize it as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative .... The complaint further alleged that Respon dent has "refused to recognize the Union as the ex- clusive representative of the employees and the acts of Respondent set forth above constitute unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) and Sections 2(6) and (7) of the Act." The Board has held, with court approval,6 that "it would not matter that the complaint failed to men- tion a specific section of the Act, if the alleged con- duct was in fact violative of that section. . . . Where, as here, the complaint clearly describes an action which is alleged to constitute an unfair labor practice but . . . alleges the wrong subsection, such failure or mistake, if it does not mislead the parties charged, does not prevent the Board from considering and de- ciding the charge so presented." I Thus, as noted su- pra, although the complaint did not allege a specific violation of Section 8(a)(5), the issue was fully litigat- ed and we find that all the elements necessary to an 8(a)(5) violation have been established. Accordingly, we find, upon the basis of the entire record, that Re- spondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, and we shall order Respondent to bargain with the Union. However, we disagree with the Administrative Law Judge's establishing January 10, 1975, as the date 4 See Vincent's Steak House, Inc , 216 NLRB 647 (1975) 5 N L R B v Gissel Packing Co, Inc, 395 U S 575 (1969) 6 Pecheur Lozenge Co, Inc, 98 NLRB 496, 497 (1952), enfd 209 F 2d 393 (C A. 2, 1953) See Schwab Foods, Inc, d/b/a Scotts IGA Foodliner, 223 NLRB 394 (1976), Hedstrom Company, a subsidiary of Brown Group, Inc, 223 NLRB 1409 (1976), Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc, and BBR of Florida, Inc, 223 NLRB 286 (1976) 7 N L R B v Pecheur Lozenge Co, 209 F 2d 393, 402 (C A 2, 1953) that Respondent should be required to recognize and bargain with the Union. In this proceeding the Union asked for recognition in November 1974 but Respondent replied that it was "not at all interested." Soon thereafter Respon- dent embarked on a course of unlawful conduct which included interrogation and threats which we find are violations of Section 8(a)(1). On December 6, 1974, the Union began to picket and continued picketing for 35 days. During the same time, the Union secured valid authorization cards from the employees designating the Union as their bargaining agent. Respondent had 15 employees on the Pacoima payroll for the week of January 6, 1975, including 3 whom we find were unlawfully discharged, 9 of whom executed valid cards prior to that date which gave the Union majority status as of January 6, 1975. Although the Union lacked majority status in No- vember when it made a demand for recognition, Respondent's declaration that it was not interested was not premised on the fact that the Union lacked majority status but was apparently an outright rejec- tion of the request without regard to the number of cards held. In light of its subsequent conduct and the Union's picketing, we find that the Union's demand was a continuing demand 8 and that Respondent should be required to recognize and bargain with the Union as of January 6, 1975, the date on which the Union did achieve majority status. AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Substitute the following for the Administrative Law Judge's Conclusion of Law 4: "4. By refusing, since January 6, 1975, and at all times thereafter, to recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employ- ees in the appropriate unit set out above, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act." 2. In Conclusion of Law 6, add the name of Paul Arias who was discharged on December 13, 1975. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, New- ton Joseph, d/b/a Meat Packers International, Pa- 8 See American Compressed Steel Corporation, 146 NLRB 1463, 1470 (1964), and cases cited therein, The Kostel Corporation, d/b/a Big Ben Shoe Store, 172 NLRB 1523, 1524, (1968), and 179 NLRB 730 (1969), Sylgab Steel & Wire Corp, 162 NLRB 303, 304 (1966) 296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD coima, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said rec- ommended Order, as so modified: 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a): "(a) Offer Isaac Gonzalez, Alfredo Mendoze, Luis Martinez, Francisco Martinez, Antonio Mercado Vasquez, Mario Gonzalez, Salvador Ortiz, Manuel Flores, Manuel Reyes, Enrique Gonzalez aka Jesse Morgan, Olga Martinez, Augustin Silva, and Raul Arias immediate and full reinstatement to their for- mer positions or, if those jobs no longer exist, to sub- stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority, or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them in the manner set forth in the section of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision entitled the Remedy."' 2. In paragraph 2(b), delete "January 10, 1975," and substitute in lieu thereof "January 6, 1975." 3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the Administrative Law Judge. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL recognize and bargain with Meat Cutters Local No. 421, Amalgamated Meat Cut- ters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, as of January 6, 1975, as the exclu- sive bargaining representative of all employees in the following appropriate bargaining unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of em- ployment, and other terms and conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: All employees employed at Respondent's re- tail meat market located at 10435 Laurie Can- yon Boulevard, Pacoima, California, exclud- ing office clericals, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act: WE WILL offer Isaac Gonzalez, Alfredo Men- doza, Luis Martinez, Francisco Martinez, Anto- nio Mercado Vasquez, Mario Gonzalez, Salva- dor Ortiz, Manuel Flores, Manuel Reyes, Enrique Gonzalez aka Jesse Morgan, Olga Mar- tinez, Augustin Silva, and Raul Arias immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions or, if those jobs no longer exist, substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges previ- ously enjoyed and WE WILL make each whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of his or her termination, with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Meat Cutters Local No. 421, Amalgamated Meat Cut- ters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, or any other union, by discharging or otherwise discriminating against any of our employees because of their union or concerted activity. WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concern- ing their union activity or that of other employ- ees. WE WILL NOT threaten employees with dis- charge or plant closure for supporting the Union. WE WILL NOT threaten employees with dis- charge if they refuse to sign documents renounc- ing the Union. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named Union, or any other labor organi- zation, to bargain collectively through represen- tatives of their own choosing and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of col- lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec- tion, or to refrain from any or all such activities. NEWTON JOSEPH , d/b/a MEAT PACKERS IN- TERNATIONAL DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JAMES T. RASBURY, Administrative Law Judge: A hearing in this consolidated proceeding was held at Los Angeles, California, on various dates from April 1, 1975, through April 22, 1975. A consolidated amended complaint was is- sued in Cases 21-CA-13249 and 21-CA-13396 on March 18, 1975, based on an original, first, second, and third amended charges filed in Case 21-CA-13249 by the Meat Cutters Local 421, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butch- er Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, herein the Union, on December 17 and 18, 1974, and January 22 and February 3, 1975, respectively, and the charge in Case 21- CA-13396 filed by Vincent Salazar, herein Salazar, on February 18, 1975. The consolidated amended complaint alleges, in sub- stance, that Respondent discharged 15 employees I in vio- 1 The 15 named employees are Isaac Gonzalez, Hector Renee Sanchez, MEAT PACKERS INTERNATIONAL lation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, discharged a supervisor in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and engaged in numerous independent acts in violation of Sec- tion 8(a)(1) of the Act, including interrogation, threats of plant closure, discharge, and impressions of surveillance. On March 25, 1975, Respondent filed an answer which denied the commission of the unfair labor practices as al- leged in the complaint. Upon the entire record and from my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and having given full consider- ation to the posthearing briefs submitted by the counsel for the General Counsel and by Respondent's counsel, I here- by make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent, a sole proprietorship, is engaged in the re- tail sale of meat at its retail store located at 10435 Laurel Canyon Boulevard, Pacoima, California, and at least until February 15, 1975, was engaged in the retail sale of meat at its retail store located at 5498 Whittier Boulevard, City of Commerce, California. In the normal course and conduct of its business operations Respondent annually derives gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and annually purchas- es and receives goods, products, and materials valued in excess of $50,000 from suppliers located outside the State of California. On the basis of these admitted facts, I here- with find that Respondent is, and at all material times herein has been, an employer engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED I herewith find Meat Cutters Local No. 421, Amalga- mated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, to be, and at all times material herein has been , a labor organization within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ISSUES 1. What motivated Respondent in severing the employ- ees named in the complaint from Respondent's payroll? 2. Did Respondent's owner, Newton Joseph, threaten, coerce, and interrogate employees in violation of the em- ployees' Section 7 rights, and/or cause the same to be done by his supervisors? 3. Is the Union a racially prejudiced labor organization to be denied the Board's processes under the Mansion House doctrine? 3 Alfredo Mendosa, Raul Arias, Luis Martinez, Francisco Martinez, Antonio Mercado Vasquez, Camillo Perez, Mario Gonzalez, Salvadore Comolos Or- tiz, Manuel Flores, Manuel Reyes, Enrique Gonzalez, a/k/a Jesse Morgan, Gildardo Guerrero, and Olga Martinez 2 The supervisor's name is Augustin Silva i Mansion House Center Management Corporation, 190 NLRB 437 (1971), enforcement of 8(a)(5) violation denied 473 F 2d 471 (C.A 8, 1973) 297 4. Did Respondent's supervisors lend support and aid to the Union and thereby "taint" the authorization cards? 5. Did the Union make illegal promises regarding the waiving of initiation fees in violation of the Savair doc- trine? IV. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background and Contentions of the Parties Newton Joseph, the owner-operator of Respondent, has at all times been an acknowledged supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. At the hearing, Respondent's counsel stipulated that Max Jimenez and Augustin Silva were supervisors within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(11) of the Act, and there was testimony tending to cause me to believe that at all material times herein Alber- to Vasquez was a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. Newton Joseph's Pacoima store had been open for ap- proximately 3 years and in late 1974 he was busy making preparations for the opening of a second store in the City of Commerce (an area within the City of Los Angeles and sometimes referred to herein as the Los Angeles store). About the middle of November, organizers, including Sala- zar, from the Union, called on Newton Joseph and asked that he recognize the Union inasmuch as he, Joseph, had been a former member of the Union. Joseph refused the union recognition and advised them that he was not at all interested. In preparation for the opening for the new store, Re- spondent hired a larger number of employees than might otherwise have been necessary at the Pacoima store for the purpose of training and having available a few experienced employees for the opening of the City of Commerce store. It is the General Counsel's contention that in the latter part of November, after having been approached by the union organizers, but just before the opening of the store in the City of Commerce, Joseph held a meeting of the em- ployees in the Pacoima store and there, by utilizing the services of Ruben Rodriguez as an interpreter, told the em- ployees that the Union would be attempting to organize the employees; he had previous experiences and problems with the Union and he did not want any of the employees to talk with the union agents or sign their cards; if the employees signed the union cards they would lose their jobs; and he would rather close down the shop than to sign a contract with the Union. The City of Commerce store was opened on November 30, 1974, and the Union began its organizational picketing of both stores on December 6. The General Counsel con- tends that during this time there was almost daily question- ing and threats directed toward the employees by the Re- spondent. General Counsel also contends that, on another occasion in mid-December, Newton Joseph held another meeting of the employees at the Pacoima store and again with Ruben Rodriguez serving as an interpreter he told the employees that he would rather close down his doors than to let the Union in and that if he learned that anyone had Savair Manufacturing Company, 194 NLRB 298 (1971 ), enforcement de- nied 470 F 2d 305 (C A 6, 1972), affd 414 U.S 270 (1973). 298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD signed with the Union that he was going to discharge them; that the Union didn't really care about them but that it was he, Newton Joseph, who signed their paychecks. At or about this same period of time , a number of lay- offs and discharges of various employees began which Re- spondent contends was either due to the incompetence of the individuals and/or the loss of business at the City of Commerce store because of the union picketing. At the same time, Respondent contends that he saw the futility of continuing to operate the City of Commerce store, and he began looking for a buyer . On January 15, a prospective buyer was found and a contract entered into . On February 15, escrow closed and the Respondent ceased business at the City of Commerce store, and a number of employees were laid off at that time. Respondent contends that the layoffs were made neces- sary because of the loss of business stemming from the picketing by the Union and the discharges which occurred at this time were all for good cause; that the Respondent made no derogatory or threatening and coercing remarks to the employees concerning the Union , and specifically denies having interrogated the employees concerning their union activity and interest. Moreover, the Respondent con- tends that it was impossible for Joseph to have made the alleged comments to the employees at the Pacoima store in December and January because he was never in the Pacoi- ma store during those months . Respondent further con- tends that the comments and remarks of the pickets on the picket line were such as to reflect a racially discriminatory attitude which prevents this union from seeking relief un- der the National Labor Relations Act; that Respondent's supervisors assisted the employees in becoming signers of the union authorization cards and that they are, therefore, tainted ; and specifically denies any union animus. B. The Evidence Regarding the Alleged Threats, Coercion, and Interrogation Ruben Rodriguez testified that he has been employed by Respondent for 3 years at the Pacoima store but that he has also performed work at the Los Angeles store. On dif- ferent occasions, he has been asked by Newton Joseph to serve as an interpreter. One occasion was shortly after mid- November 1974 dust before the Los Angeles store opened. Joseph told the employees that he was opening a new store in Los Angeles and that Max Jimenez and Augustin Silva would be taking on additional authority. He told the em- ployees that the Union had approached him and that they were going to try and cause trouble for him; that they would come in and make promises to the employees, un- true promises, to get them to sign up for the Union. He advised the employees that he had previously had trouble with the Union and that he would close down the doors if the employees selected the Union and everyone would be out of a job. On another occasion in mid-December 1974, Rodriguez testified that he was asked by Joseph to tell the employees that we were having trouble, lots of union trou- bles and that the employees could not have a union there. On this occasion, Rodriguez was told to ask the employees if they were on his (Newton Joseph's) side or not. Joseph went on to say that the Union didn't give a damn about the employees, that he (Joseph) was the one who signed their paychecks, and that he would close down the doors before he would sign up with the Union. On another occasion , Rodriguez testified that he was asked to translate for Joseph during the questioning of two other employees who Rodriguez named as Manuel Reyes and Rafael Banuelos. Joseph wanted to ascertain if the employees had been to Luis Martinez' home at a party where Joseph understood a union organizer had been pres- ent. On this occasion, Joseph told Banuelos that he had brought him down to discharge him but because of the straightforwardness of his answers he was going to let him continue to work. On another occasion , in January, Rodri- guez testified that Newton Joseph asked him to inquire of Manuel Reyes what his relationship was to some of the former employees who had already been discharged. On this occasion, Joseph wanted to know if Reyes discussed the Union with the other employees and asked if the Union had gotten the discharged employees another job. Rodri- guez related other occasions on which Joseph questioned him personally about the Union and , on another occasion, witness testified that Joseph told him that they had a lot of problems and that they were going to lose the Los Angeles store and Pacoima might go, too. But he (Joseph) said, "as soon as I close the Los Angeles store I'm going to go to Pacoima and I'll regroup my forces . There's going to be some changes made and I am going to win." Augustin Silva testified that he was hired in July 1974 and worked as a part-time employee until November when he started working as a full-time employee and continued until January 22, 1975 , when he was discharged . Silva testi- fied that Joseph told him that he was to discharge the em- ployees whom he saw talking with the Union or whom he saw signing union cards . Silva corroborated the testimony of Ruben Rodriguez with regard to a meeting of the em- ployees that occurred at the Pacoima store on or about November 24, 1974, in which Ruben Rodriguez served as the interpreter and on which occasion Joseph warned the employees that he had been approached by the Union and that the employees were not to believe the promises of the Union because he (Joseph) had had problems with the Union before . "Joseph told us that anyone who signed the union cards would be fired ; that he was the one that signed the checks and that he wanted no dealings with the Union." Joseph continued by saying that "if the Union infiltrated his business that he preferred to close the doors and that the employees would be the only ones affected since we would be left withoutjobs ." Silva also corroborat- ed Ruben Rodriguez' testimony concerning the December 12 meeting on which occasion Joseph repeated his threats. Silva testified that he heard Newton Joseph question Anto- nio Vasquez and Raymond Silva about the Union on De- cember 16 , 1974, at the Los Angeles store . Following his questioning of Vasquez, on which occasion Vasquez ac- knowledged that he attended a party and that he had signed a union card along with several other employees, Joseph became angered and annoyed with Silva because Silva had not acknowledged knowing about the party and who had attended . In response, Silva told Newton that he was not employed to be a spy. Silva testified that at various times he questioned nearly all of the employees at the MEAT PACKERS INTERNATIONAL 299 stores concerning their involvement in the Union because he was asked to do so by Newton Joseph. Silva also testi- fied that on one occasion Newton Joseph confided in him that his plan to frustrate the Union would be to hire em- ployees and only keep them for 2 or 3 weeks and then lay them off and in this way he would not give the Union time to organize the employees. Enrique Gonzalez, also known as Jesse Morgan,5 testi- fied in a manner that corroborated the testimony of Ruben Rodriguez and Augustin Silva regarding the coercive and threatening remarks made to the employees by Newton Joseph at the November 24 and the December 12 meetings. Additionally, the witness clarified the fact that on Decem- ber 12 Max Jimenez had told the employees during the day that Newton Joseph would be coming over for the evening meeting and that he would be bringing cards which he would ask the employees to sign denouncing the Union and that those employees who did not sign the cards would be fired immediately. On this occasion Jimenez told the employees that Newton Joseph would never sign a contract with the Union and that the employees would be the ones harmed if they signed cards because Joseph would fire them. Gonzalez also testified that besides being questioned by Newton Joseph that he was also questioned by Carmela Goldberg, the office manager, who told him, "You're a friend of the boys, do you know who has signed? Tell me. Tell me. We'll fire them, but I will reward you because you are helping me." Olga Martinez testified that she was present at a meeting of all the employees of the Los Angeles store around De- cember 6 or 7 at which time Alberto Vasquez served as an interpreter for Newton Joseph who told the employees not to listen to the Union because the Union made many promises but didn't keep them, that he would fire anyone who signed up with the Union, and that he would prefer to close his doors rather than work with the Union. Witness further testified that after being returned to the Pacoima store she was questioned by Newton Joseph in the presence of Carmela Goldberg at which time she was asked if she had signed a union authorization card and to give the Re- spondent the names of others who had signed union au- thorization cards. Other witnesses including Luis Martinez, Francisco Martinez, Mario Gonzalez, Manuel Reyes, Manuel Flores, and Tomas Lopez testified to either indi- vidual questioning by Newton Joseph or the General Counsel's offer to have them testify concerning the No- vember 24 and December 12 meetings at which Newton Joseph delivered, through an interpreter, a coercive threat- ening and intimidating speech. Setting forth the detailed testimony of these witnesses would only tend to unduly burden this decision. Suffice it to say that in general their testimony corroborated that of other witnesses and clearly indicated that Newton Joseph was strongly antiunion, made numerous derogatory remarks concerning the Union, 5 The witness explained that on previous occasions he had attempted to get work with Respondent and had been unsuccessful His friend obtained a job with Respondent and then decided to go into the Army As a conse- quence , his friend, Jesse Morgan , suggested that he (Enrique Gonzalez) assume his (Morgan's) identity and take his place because then Gonzalez would have a job for sure This explanation is a logical and reasonable one and is credited and threatened employees frequently that they would be discharged if he learned of their association with the Union. The testimony of Raul Frias and Nicolas Castro is sup- portive of other testimony relating to the coercive com- ments made by Newton Joseph at the November 24 and December 12 employee meetings; in addition, these wit- nesses testified to a meeting on February 25, 1975, in which Alberto Vasquez served as an interpreter, when Newton Joseph told them that he knew the Union was trying to remain in contact with his employees; that he knew that Frias and Castro had not signed with the Union and thus they remained in his employ, but if he learned of anybody who had signed up, or is interested in the Union, that he would fire them just as he had the other employees who were in contact with the Union earlier. While this state- ment was not alleged in the complaint as a violation of the Act, nevertheless, it tends to prove the union animus of the Respondent and the earlier threatening and coercive re- marks by Newton Joseph. In addition, witness Nicholas Castro testified that he had had a conversation with Mr. Joseph on April 15, 1975, at the Pacoima store (this would be after the hearing in this current matter had opened) in which Joseph told him that he didn't care if he was with the Union or not, if the Union entered he would no longer have a job. In my opinion, these two employees showed remarkable courage and fortitude to so testify inasmuch as they are currently employed and have nothing to gain. Respondent, Newton Joseph, testified and denied that he had ever made derogatory statements to the employees concerning the Union or that he had threatened their dis- charge if he learned that they were associated with the Union in any way. Most importantly, Joseph contends that he was busy working in the Los Angeles store during the months of December and January and that it was impossi- ble for him to have made the threatening and coercive re- marks attributed to him during those 2 months because he was never at the Pacoima store. Max Jimenez was called as a witness by the Respondent and denied that he had ever told a group of employees that Newton Joseph was bringing some antiunion cards and that the employees had to sign the cards if they wished to avoid being discharged. Jimenez denied ever having inter- rogated any of the employees concerning their union mem- bership, activities, or sympathies. On cross-examination, Jimenez acknowledged that he may have asked employees who Vincent Salazar was and what the employees were talking to him about. Carmela Goldberg, who is the office manager and spent most of her time at the Pacoima store, corroborated Mr. Joseph's testimony to the effect that he was not in the Pa- coima store during the months of December 1974 or Janu- ary 1975. Carmela Goldberg denied that she had ever en- gaged in conversation relating to the Union with any of the employees. C. The Evidence Relating to the Alleged Unlawful Discharges 1. Isaac Gonzalez • Gonzalez started working on Novem- ber 27 at the Los Angeles store and was "laid off" Decem- 300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ber 10, 1974. On December 7 he signed a union authoriza- tion card (G.C Exh. 3(a) ). He testified he had not talked to anyone about signing the card except the union repre- sentative. He stated that on one occasion Newton Joseph told him he would be discharged if he (Joseph) learned that he had signed a union card. At the time of his layoff, he was told by Joseph that "there was lack of work because the union was ruining the business, and there was no rea- son for me to be around because all he would have would be too many guys around." Newton Joseph testified that he discharged Isaac Gonza- lez because he was a bad employee, not a conscientious worker, and stood around with his arms on his apron when there was much work to do. 2. Alfredo Mendoza: First applied for work at the Pacoi- ma store on December 3 when he was interviewed by Au- gustin Silva. Silva told him he would recommend him, but that he would have to come back later. On December 6 he was able to see Max Jimenez who told him to report for work the next day. Mendoza testified that he signed a union authorization card about 3 days later.6 Mendoza de- scribed the noon December 12 meeting at which Max Jim- enez advised the employees that there would be an evening meeting and Newton Joseph would be there with the an- tiunion cards to sign (see supra, sec. IV, B). On this occa- sion, Mendoza asked Jimenez what would happen if he didn't sign the card. Jimenez responded by saying: "Be careful when you go out of here the door don't hit you in the ass." I Later that same day, Jimenez asked Mendoza, "What do you think about the union?" When Mendoza replied, "I don't know. I'm neutral," Jimenez said: "With us there's no neutral. Either you're with us or you go." Later that evening when Mendoza sought entrance to the store in order to attend the evening meeting, he was denied access by Augustin Silva. Augustin Silva testified that he was told by Max Jimenez to discharge Mendoza. Accord- ing to Silva, Jimenez said to him, "Did you know that- that stupid Alfredo Mendoza is a member of the union?" When Silva answered, "No," Jimenez then said, "Well, you see he is a member of the union and me had [sic] to fire him today." Max Jimenez denied that he ever discharged or told Au- gustin Silva to discharge Mendoza. Carmela Goldberg tes- tified that she discharged Mendoza after she had observed that he was nearly involved in an accident with one of the machines. She said she discussed the matter with Jime- nez-asked Jimenez to watch him and that Jimenez report- ed back that he was inept. Whereupon the following morn- ing she terminated him. Jimenez failed to testify as to any consultation with Goldberg. 3. Raul Arias: Arias testified that he was hired on No- vember 27, 1974, for work in the Los Angeles store. On December 13, 1974, Newton Joseph told him, "I'm scared of you guys because you guys can get the union in." When Arias protested that he knew nothing about the Union, 6 While the union authorization cards for many of the employees were introduced (G C Exhs 3(a) thru 3(s) ), General Counsel represented that Mendoza's card had been misplaced and was not available as evidence i Other employee witnesses testified that Jimenez told them they would be discharged if they did not not sign the "anti-union" card Joseph told him he would give him one more chance but, "I don't want no more of this backstabbing, trying to get the union in." He worked the next day but missed work on December 21, his next scheduled day to work. Arias testi- fied that when he went in to pick up his check that Joseph "didn't tell me nothing. He didn't tell me to come back or you're fired or nothing. He didn't tell me nothing." New- ton Joseph indicated Arias was let go because he didn't know how to read a scale. 4. Luis Martinez Luis Martinez was one of Respondent's most experienced employees, having started to work for Respondent on September 20, 1972. He was transferred to the Los Angeles store the last week in No- vember, 1974. On December 11, 1974, he signed a union authorization card (see G.C. Exh. 3(1)). According to his testimony, Joseph accused him on two occasions in De- cember of having signed a union card and then on Decem- ber 16 he (Joseph) accused him of having had a party at his house that was attended by many employees and a repre- sentative of the Union. Joseph then called Augustin Silva and told him to tell Martinez that he was discharged, "be- cause I cannot pay him the money that I'm paying him now." Augustin Silva related that on the morning of December 16 he served as an interpreter for Newton Joseph who questioned Antonio Mercado Vasquez concerning a party at Luis Martinez' house.' Vasquez acknowledged that he had gone to the party; that he had signed an authorization card and named several others who had signed cards in- cluding Luis Martinez. Whereupon, Joseph told Silva to tell Vasquez, "You are not my friend. You are my enemy and you have stabbed me in the back, because you signed up for the union. And whoever is with me, I am with him. So, goodbye and don't come back here again." Silva relat- ed that Vasquez left, but that he remained in the office and heard Joseph say he was going to fire everyone that had signed up for the Union. Later that morning in the pres- ence of Silva, Joseph discharged Luis Martinez. According to Martinez, there was further discussion regarding some money that he "owed" 9 Newton Joseph. According to Martinez, this "debt" was canceled. According to Newton Joseph, Martinez had been dis- charged from the Pacoima store in the late summer or early fall of 1974 because of drinking on the job. At the time he "owed" (see fn. 9) Joseph money. He was rehired at the time the Los Angeles store opened because he needed the experienced help and hopefully Martinez would repay the money he owed. According to Joseph, he discharged Mar- tinez sometime in mid-December because Martinez told him he didn't want to pay the money and didn't have to. 8 While Augustin Silva testified at the hearing through an official inter- preter, it was apparent that he knew considerable English and so advised the court However, he was allowed to testify through an interpreter, as were several other witnesses, over the objections of Respondent's counsel because I am of the opinion it would have been manifestly unfair and inequitable to have denied them the right to be questioned and to respond in their native language The need for an interpreter is within the discretion of the judge People v Holzclaw, 76 Cal App 168, 243 Pac 894 ( 1926), also see Cal Evid code sec 752(a) and 3 Wigmore, Evidence § 811 9 Testimony indicated that as money was moved from the cash register to the safe, it was accounted for by signing one's name to indicate the number of the sack of money placed in the safe Apparently , one or more sacks of money for which Luis Martinez was supposedly responsible were "lost" MEAT PACKERS INTERNATIONAL 301 Joseph denied having any knowledge of Martinez' interest in the Union. Witnesses Becker and Goldberg claimed they were in Joseph's office at the time of Martinez' discharge and testified he was fired because business was slow and Martinez refused to repay the money owed to Joseph. 5. and 6. Franciso Martinez and Mario Gonzalez: 1 Fran- cisco Martinez was first employed in April 1974 and worked until discharged in mid-December 1974.11 He signed a union authorization card dated December 9, 1974 (G.C. Exh. 3(1) ). Francisco Martinez testified that on the morning of December 16 he and Mario Gonzalez, in the presence of Jesse Morgan, Rafael Banuelos, and Manuel Reyes, were discharged by Max Jimenez. According to Martinez, Jimenez said, "he had found out that the day before we had been at a party of a friend of ours, Luis Martinez, and that the union representative had been there, Vincent Salazar, and that he had knowledge that we had signed in with the union and he said that, therefore, we were all fired." Whereupon Jesse Morgan asked why they were all being fired. Jimenez replied he was only firing Francisco Martinez and Mario Gonzalez and "as far as you are concerned, whatever Newt says will be done." Mario Gonzalez was first employed on November 6, 1974, and signed a union authorization card on December 9 (G.C. Exh. 3(k) ). His testimony regarding the facts of his discharge was essentially the same as that of Francisco Martinez which has dust been related in the paragraph im- mediately above. Carmela Goldberg testified that she terminated Francis- co Martinez after Augustin Silva and Max Jimenez told her that Martinez was taking meat which he did not declare or include in the meat which he purchased at the employees' discount. Jimenez denied that he discharged Martinez or any other employee and stated that he heard Silva recommend the discharge of Martinez for stealing. Augustin Silva denied reporting to Goldberg that Marti- nez was stealing, but acknowledged that he had com- plained to Newton Joseph, by telephone on December 13, a problem that involved Francisco Martinez. The problem related to the failure of the employees to properly mark and place in one place their personal purchases and it was causing extra work and confusion for Silva. Silva wanted Joseph to explain to all employees the proper procedure. Silva testified that he worked at the Los Angeles store on December 16 and could not possibly have been present at the discharge of Martinez as testified to by Jimenez. Goldberg's testimony regarding Mario Gonzalez was to the effect that she was concerned because she feared he had an improper social security number and that the pick- eters were threatening to call the immigration service to report the illegal workers. Goldberg testified, "The reason I terminated him was because I was a little afraid that he didn't have a social security number and I particularly was 10 The testimony relating to the discharge of these two employees will be considered jointly because they were allegedly discharged at the same time 11 On cross-examination, Martinez acknowledged that he had first gone to work under the name of Ruben Garcia because he did not have his own social security card and number However, he credibly explained that when he obtained his own social security card he told both Newton Joseph and Carmela Goldberg fond of him and I wanted in some way to protect him." She denied any knowledge of his union interest or activity. 7. Salvador Ortiz: Ortiz testified that he went to work for Respondent on October 28, 1974. His last day of work was December 12, but he was not notified of his discharge until December 19. Ortiz signed a union authorization card on December 10, 1974. (G.C. Exh. 3(f) ). He testified that Newton Joseph advised him that he was being laid off be- cause business was slow; he had a lot of problems with the Union; and "he knew that I had signed for the Union and therefore I didn't have a job any longer." Newton Joseph testified that he had very little recollec- tion of Salvador Ortiz but denied that he discharged him because he (Ortiz) had signed a union card. 8. Manuel Flores: Flores was hired by Respondent on December 5, 1974, at the Pacoima store; signed a union authorization card on January 13, 1975 (G.C. Exh. 3(m) ), and was terminated on January 26, 1975. Flores testified that Alberto Vasquez discharged him, at which time he was told Mr. Joseph said "he had no more work for me first of all because work was slow and, secondly, because he knew that I had signed a card for the Union." Vasquez was not questioned by counsel regarding this discharge, but he did testify to certain derogatory or antiunion comments by Jo- seph to the employees. Carmela Goldberg's testimony was that she was afraid of Manuel Flores; that he was discharged because of "his de- meanor and his impudence and certain attitudes that he has and displayed." 9. Manuel Reyes• Reyes testified that he started to work for Respondent on July 20, 1974; signed a union authoriza- tion card on December 10, 1974; and was transferred to the Los Angeles store on January 20, 1975. Witness de- scribed two or three conversations with Newton Joseph in which he was questioned regarding the Union. On January 19, he was informed by Max Jimenez that he was being transferred to the Los Angeles store on the following day. When he protested because he had no means of transporta- tion, Jimenez informed him that he could speak to Newton Joseph who would arrive at the store a little later. Reyes testified that when Joseph arrived he asked Efren Rodri- guez 12 to serve as an interpreter for him with Joseph. When he explained to Joseph that he had no means of transportation, Joseph told him he was sorry, but that the only place he had work available for him was in Los Ange- les. Reyes reported to work and worked in Los Angeles the week of January 20, but his name did not appear on the schedule for the following week. When Reyes inquired of Ruben Rodriguez why his name was not on the schedule, he was told, "that Mr. Joseph had indicated to him (Rodri- guez) that work was very slow, that there was little business and plus the fact that he suspected that I (Reyes) had signed a card with the Union." Newton Joseph testified that Reyes quit. Joseph said that Reyes was cut down from full-time to part-time work on Saturday and Sunday and simply failed to show up for work, that he was never fired. 12 Ruben Rodriquez and Efren Barrera are step-brothers Efren Barrera corroborated the testimony of Manuel Reyes and said that he served as the interpreter between Reyes and Joseph It is most logical that Reyes' refer- ence to Efren Rodriguez was intended to be Efren Barrera and I so find 302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 10. Enrique Gonzalez, aka Jesse Morgan:13 Enrique Gon- zalez' testimony regarding several coercive and threatening statements by Newton Joseph has been set forth supra (sec. IV, B). Witness related that at a meeting about December 19 or 20, at which Alberto Vasquez served as an interpret- er, Newton Joseph apologized to Gonzalez for discharging his brother Mario, but added that the employees had been warned that they would be discharged if they signed with the Union. Witness related that Joseph told him he was being transferred to the Los Angeles store the latter part of December-about the 26th or 27th. Gonzalez protested that there were others who had cars, but that he had no means of transportation to which Joseph replied, "that was my problem." Gonzalez reported as directed. Gonzalez' last day of work at the Los Angeles store was December 31, on that day he injured his hand and could not work. However, he frequently visited the store and talked to the employees. The latter part of January 1975-but before he had been released by the doctor to return to work-he was visiting in the store with Ramon Silva when Joseph ordered him out of the store and said he would call the police if he didn't leave. When Gonzalez protested that, "I have not done anything wrong. Why are you calling the police on me? I work here Newton." Joseph then replied: "No, you used to work. You don't work anymore. You signed the card with the union and I know it." Whereupon Joseph ushered him out of the store. After his injury was complete- ly well and the bandage removed (first of March 1975), Gonzalez related that he saw Joseph in front of the Pacoi- ma store and said: "Look, I'm well now. I'd like to come back to work. When can I come back?" To which Joseph responded by saying, "My business is very slow." Gonzalez then replied, "Why is it that if it's so slow you have new employees here and I'm an older employee than any of the ones that are here?" Joseph then replied, "I want nothing to do with you, Jesse, because you gave me a stab in the back. You are with the union. And you're never going to work for me anymore." Ramon Silva's testimony concerning the late January 1975, confrontation between Joseph and Gonzalez wherein Joseph informed Gonzalez of his discharge was supportive of Gonzalez' version. Newton Joseph testified that Gonzalez talked to him once about coming back to work, but at that time his hand was still bandaged and he (Joseph) told Gonzalez to con- tact Carmela because she was running the Pacoima store. Carmela Goldberg testified that she planned to take "Jesse Morgan" back to work after March 15 which was the date Jesse's doctor had informed her he (Jesse) would be able to return to work. According to Goldberg, Jesse never asked for his job back after March 15, 1975. Gonzalez related that on one of his many visits to the Pacoima store he copied the names of the employees scheduled for work the week of January 12, 1975. (See G.C. 13 Witness acknowledged that he had also used his brother's name, Mario Gonzalez Witness at first denied using the name "Mario Gonzalez," or performing work under that name, but was recalled to the stand and apolo- gized to the court and testified that he had lied because he "thought that while this procedure was continuing, I was not allowed to work and in order to not interrupt or affect it, I said, `No' " Exh. 4.) The employees working at the Pacoima store dur- ing the first part of January 1975, as reflected by this ex- hibit, was confirmed by a current employee, Raul Fnas. 11. Olga Martinez: Olga Martinez testified that she first started working for Respondent in October 1974 as a cash- ier. When the Los Angeles store opened the first of Decem- ber she was transferred. She worked there until December 28, 1974. She signed a union authorization card on January 14, 1975 (G.C. Exh. 3(g) ). Witness testified that she had a week's vacation following December 28 and then was transferred back to the Pacoima store effective January 6 or 7, 1975. Olga testified that the latter part of January she was questioned by Joseph, in the presence of Goldberg, about the Union and asked to relate the names of those who had signed for the Union. During this conversation, Joseph told her he (Joseph) knew she had signed a union card. On February 4, 1975, she related that Joseph called her to the office and there in the presence of Goldberg discharged her. At that time he told her her boyfriend had called and told Joseph that she (Olga Martinez) was quit- ting. Olga denied that her boyfriend had made such a call. Carmela Goldberg testified that Olga was asked to work extra on Saturday, February 1, which she declined. Howev- er, she said she would work on February 2. On the 2nd she called in sick and then failed to show up on her regular scheduled day, February 3. On the afternoon of February 3, according to Carmela, a man who identified himself as Olga's boyfriend, called to say that Olga was terminating. On February 4, when Olga showed up for work a replace- ment had been hired, but Goldberg told her to go home, she would talk further with management and be in contact with her. On February 5, Olga called and asked about her check and then came in a few days later to pick it up. Goldberg denied that she had any knowledge of Olga Mar- tinez' interest in the Union 12. Antonio Mercado Vasquez: While this employee could not be located by the General Counsel for purposes of testifying, there was testimony from Augustin Silva that he (Silva) served as an interpreter for Joseph on December 16 when Joseph questioned Vasquez about being at a party with a union organizer present and signing a union author- ization card.14 According to Silva, Vasquez acknowledged having been at the party and having signed a union author- ization card. Joseph then told Vasquez, "Goodbye and don't come back again." Newton Joseph did not specifically mention Vasquez in his testimony, but generally denied discharging anyone be- cause of their interest or activity in the Union. 13. and 14. Camillo Perez and Hector Rene Sanchez: While Respondent's answer admitted the discharge of Camillo Perez and Hector Sanchez, it denied that it was for unlawful reasons. These former employees could not be located by the General Counsel and did not testify. There was a paucity of direct evidence proving these illegal dis- charges, unless they are to be considered as dischargees coming within a planned antiunion policy. Evidence of their union interest or activity was lacking. 14 This was the party which Luis Martinez acknowledged occurred at his home in celebration of his son's birthday MEAT PACKERS INTERNATIONAL 303 15. Guildardo Guerrero: Guerrero was first employed in October 1974. He signed a union authorization card on December 12, 1974 (G.C. Exh. 3(1) ). Witness testified that in mid-January Joseph accused him of signing with the Union and told him he was going to be fired. A few days later when Guerrero did not see his name on the schedule, he asked Joseph when he was to report to work. Joseph replied, "Well there is no more work for you because I know you have signed with the Union." Thereafter, Guer- rero filed a charge with the National Labor Relations Board and approximately 10 days later when he went to get his final check, Carmela said to him: "Guildardo, I know that you have made a statement against us, against Newton. Your work is here for you. Why are you trying to do us wrong? You know that we have done many favors for you." The result of this conversation was that Guerrero was returned to work and continued to work until the Los Angeles store was sold on February 15, 1975. Respondent contends Guerrero was never discharged. As proof, Respondent submitted canceled paychecks (Exhs. 1(b) through 1(f)) which covered the weekly pay periods from January 8 through February 5, 1975. It was during this period that Guerrero testified he was dis- charged, filed a charge with the Board, and was then re- turned to work. 16. Augustin Silva: Silva first started working for Re- spondent on a part-time basis in July 1974. On November 9, 1974, he was made manager and employed full-time at the Pacoima store.15 He testified that he was told by Joseph to discharge any employee seen talking to the people from the Union or any employee who signed union cards. Silva related that following the questioning of Antonio Vasquez by Joseph regarding the party (Silva served as an interpret- er) that Joseph castigated him (Silva) for not knowing all about the party and who was there. At that time, Joseph said to him, "So, what am I paying you so much money for if its not for you to find out what the workers that I have in my business are doing?" Following this, Silva testified that he questioned several employees and learned that Luis Martinez had merely had a party at his house and not a union meeting. When Silva related this to Joseph, Joseph said that he knew that it had been a union party. On the day of Silva's discharge, January 26, 1975, he related that Joseph talked to him and told him that he (Joseph) wanted Silva to investigate and learn who had signed for the Union and report back to Joseph. Silva pro- tested and said that would be playing the role of a spy. Joseph assured him it was all right. Later in the day, Joseph called Silva to his office and said, "Augustin, you can see that the business is slow, so I cannot be paying employees that are getting a lot of money. So, here is your check for the week." Silva related that Joseph gave him an extra check which Joseph said Silva would need until he found work. Joseph testified that Silva was not fired but that his hours were reduced, and Silva failed to show up for work. 15 The word "manager" was used rather loosely throughout the hearing of this case There were apparently two employee supervisors, each called manager, whose working shifts would overlap One would come in the morning and stay until about 4 or 5 p in , the other would come to work about 2 p in and stay until the store was closed about 10 p in Carmela Goldberg testified that Silva was upset and dis- turbed because there had been threatening phone calls re- ceived at his home and, in late January, Silva had tried to get Joseph to lay him off. Respondent's counsel confirmed that he had heard Silva complain to Joseph about the Union and the threatening phone calls received at his home. V. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS Apart from a consideration of the Mansion House, the Savair Mfg., and the supervisory assistance arguments made by Respondent which will be considered hereinafter, a resolution of the 8(a)(1) and (3) allegations of the instant complaint turn entirely on the creditability of the witness- es. On the relevant and essential facts 16 I find I cannot credit the Respondent's key witnesses. The Respondent's owner, Newton Joseph, contends that he was not in the Pacoima store during December 1974 and January 1975. This contention is supported by the tes- timony of Carmela Goldberg, who became the key man- agement representative at the Pacoima store after she start- ed to work on November 3, 1974. If true, this would negate much of the testimony elicited from the General Counsel's witnesses. Recognizing that Joseph injured his hand in late December, and after only a day or two away from work, returned to the hospital for surgery in January, and then missed a maximum of another 10 days from work,l" there remained from 40 to 50 days in the 2-month period in which he could have visited the Pacoima store. I am confi- dent he was in the Pacoima store on several occasions dur- ing December 1974 and January 1975 and did coerce, in- terrogate, threaten, and discharge the employees as testified to by General Counsel's witnesses. I have reached this conclusion from a careful study of the record testimo- ny and my close observation and scrutiny of the demeanor of the witnesses. I was particularly impressed with the can- dor and openness of Augustin Silva, Ruben Rodriguez, Manuel Reyes, and Alberto Vasquez. Even though there were minor discrepancies in the testimony of some of the other witnesses for General Counsel, on the essential and relevant facts necessary to prove the alleged violations, their testimony was consistent with, and corroborative of, these witnesses I have fully credited. Moreover, the testimony of current employees Antonio Garcia and Nicolas Castro, which fully confirmed the union animus asserted by the dischargees, was not only honest and candid but reflected a great deal of courage (in view of Joseph's continued threats). Not only did the testi- mony of Luis Dela Mora and Maria Montagno-who were outsiders and not directly involved-completely demolish 16 Respondent's counsel complained in his brief of the inaccuracy of the transcript I have grave doubt that the transcript contains more errors than normal I have had previous transcripts from the reporters involved and they are quite competent at their job I would agree, however, that the transcript is frequently confusing, but this stems from "bickering counsels" and an inevitable loss of precise meaning when it is necessary to translate from one language to another 17 See the testimony of Joseph's sister, Mrs Katz Even if fully credited, her testimony does not account for more than 10 to 14 days of January 1975, which she claimed he (Joseph) was at her home and under medication prevented his driving 304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Joseph's contrived testimony that he was not in the Pacoi- ma store during December and January, but Respondent's own witness, (whom I believe otherwise lied in an effort to support Joseph) Max Jimenez, testified that on at least one occasion Joseph was in the Pacoima store during January 1975.18 Carmela Goldberg's testimony supporting Joseph's fabrication as to his total absence from the Pacoima store during December and January convinces me that her testi- mony was equally contrived in an effort to be helpful to the Respondent. I therefore find that Respondent did by the acts and conduct of its supervisors, Newton Joseph, Max Jimenez, and A. Silva, interrogate employees regarding their union interest and activity, threaten employees with discharge if they supported the Union, threaten employees with plant closure and loss of jobs if the employees joined or assisted the Union, and threaten employees with dis- charge unless they signed documents renouncing the Union, all of which violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. While I am convinced from the evidence that Respon- dent was determined to rid itself of the Union and desired to frustrate any and all attempts of the employees to ally themselves with a collective-bargaimng agent, I am not convinced that every employee released during this De- cember 1974 thru January 1975 period was severed for dis- criminatory reasons. In determining which of the alleged discriminatees were discriminatorily discharged, I have carefully evaluated the testimony and have held the Gener- al Counsel responsible for proving the discriminatory dis- charge by a preponderance of the evidence. The evidence pertaining to Raul Arias fails to establish that he was discharged. Accepting Arias' testimony totally, it establishes nothing more than a threat by Respondent. While Arias may have been mistaken in his testimony, what he testified was that Newton "didn't tell him he was fired or nothing." I shall recommend dismissal of the alle- gation of a wrongful discharge as it related to Raul Arias. The same is true of Camillo Perez and Hector Sanchez. While the total evidence presented by the General Counsel raises a strong suspicion that Newton Joseph would have discharged anyone whom he learned was associated with the Union, in the cases of Perez and Sanchez it is nothing more than a suspicion. Evidence of union activity is lack- ing. I shall recommend dismissal of the wrongful discharge allegations relating to Perez and Sanchez. The Respondent has proven beyond a doubt that Guer- rero was paid, and therefore most likely employed, for the entire month of January which is in direct conflict with Guerrero's testimony. I am suspicious that Guerrero inad- vertently was in error when he testified he was discharged and off the payroll for a period of approximately 10 days in January and should have testified that he was dis- charged in December 1974. Nevertheless, there is no evi- dence to this effect. It would have been relatively easy for the General Counsel to have corrected Guerrero's testimo- ny on redirect examination if there was a mistake on the dates.19 On the basis of the record evidence, I am com- is In an effort to refute Enrique Gonzalez' version of the "confrontation" with Joseph in January, Jimenez testified to the polite and nonviolent con- duct of Joseph, but in so doing unmistakably placed Joseph in the Pacoima store at a time when Joseph maintained he was not there pelled to find that Guerrero was not discharged in mid- January 1975 by Respondent and there is insufficient evi- dence to establish that his release in February 1975 was anything more than a routine termination precipitated by the sale of the store where he was then employed. I shall recommend dismissal of the allegations contained in para- graphs 8(a), (b), and (c) of the consolidated amended com- plaint. Clearly from the credited evidence and testimony herein- before set forth, employees Isaac Gonzalez, Alfredo Men- doza, Luis Martinez, Francisco Martinez, Mario Gonzalez, Salvador Ortiz, Manuel Flores, Manuel Reyes, Enrique Gonzalez aka Jesse Morgan, Antonio Mercado Vasquez, and Olga Martinez were discharged because Respondent had knowledge of their interest in the Union, or was of the opinion that each of them respectively was supporting the Union, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. I find the allegations contained in paragraphs 7(a), (b), and (c) of the amended consolidated complaint to have been proven by a preponderance of the evidence, except with respect to Raul Arias, Camillo Perez, and Hector Sanchez, as hereinbefore indicated. As hereinbefore stated, I was particularly impressed with the candor and openness of Augustin Silva as he testified. I am convinced that his testimony was completely honest and to the very best of his recollection accurate. Silva re- fused to report the union activities and interests of the em- ployees as he was requested to do by Respondent's owner, Newton Joseph, and, on his final day of employment, pro- tested Joseph's request that he spy on the employees. Dis- charging a supervisor for failure to commit unfair labor practices against employees at the behest of the employer is proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.20 As the Board has said: 21 "It is settled that the discharge of a supervisor for refusing to assist in committing unfair labor practices on behalf of his employer constitutes an invasion of the self-organizational rights of the nonsupervisory employees and, as such, violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act." I find Augustin Silva to have been wrongfully discharged by the Respondent in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In reaching these conclusions, I am convinced that it was a part of Respondent's diabolical scheme to see to it that as many union adherents as possible were working at the Los Angeles store on the date it was closed. From all of the evidence, such a conclusion is a reasonable inference, and I so find. VI. MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES RAISED BY RESPONDENT A. Supervisory "Tainted" Union Authorization Cards Respondent contends that because the evidence reveals that Efren Barrera signed his union authorization card 19 Moreover, General Counsel could have offered the charge filed by Guerrero which would have conclusively established the correct dates, but this was not done 20 See N L R B v I D Lowe, (Trustee for Barber J Thomas, Richard C Lydle, etc) d/b/a Thermo-Rite Mfg Co, 406 F 2d 1033 (C A 6, 1969); cited with approval by the U S Supreme Court at In 18 in Florida Power & Light Co v International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 641, et al, 417 U S 790, 808 (1974) 21 The Permian Corporation, 189 NLRB 860 (1971) MEAT PACKERS INTERNATIONAL 305 while in the home of his stepbrother, Ruben Rodriguez, that the card is tainted because it shows supervisory assis- tance to the Union which is proscribed by the Act.22 Similarly, Respondent contends that because Augustin Silva provided transportation for Tomas Lopez to a motel in Granada Hills where he was able to contact Vincent Salazar, the union business agent, that such conduct fur- ther indicates supervisory assistance to the Union and that Lopez' card should not be relied on to support a finding of voluntary union authorization by a majority of the employ- ees. The record is void of any showing that either Ruben Rodriguez or Augustin Silva approached any employee for the purpose of soliciting a union authorization card. Barrera's testimony indicated that Vincent Salazar dust happened to locate Barrera at his brother's home. There is no proof that either Barrera or Rodriguez called Salazar by telephone requesting his presence at Rodriguez' home and the testimony of Barrera is to the contrary. Both Lopez and Silva testified that Lopez approached Silva with an inquiry as to where he might contact a union representative and requested a ride from Silva because Lopez did not have an automobile. Silva remained in the reception area during Lopez' visit to the room occupied by the union representa- tive. In neither of these situations can I find the slighest degree of coercion, intimidation, or even mild pressure on the part of the supervisors to encourage or promote the signing of union authorization cards Enforcing the Board's decision in WKRG-TV, Inc.,23 the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said: It is actual pressure and coercion we are seeking to avoid by our rule disallowing cards tainted by supervi- sory influence. A mechanical rule that requires a find- ing of supervisory solicitation in situations such as we have here, where there is no hint of intimidation, is too broad. There must be a more substantial exhibition of pres- sure than a passing remark or a statement of pro- union conviction. So long as nothing in the words, deeds, or atmosphere of the alleged "solicitation" con- tain the seeds of potential reprisal, punishment, or in- timidation, the involvement of the supervisors does not rise to the level of supervisory "solicitation" that we condemned in American Cable I, supra. Here the supervisors attended a few union meetings and at vari- ous times made rather tame statements regarding their approval of the Union. There is not a sufficient show- ing to throw out any of the cards, and the Board was correct in refusing to allow the minimal supervisory participation in this organizational drive to frustrate the Union's otherwise valid majority. [The citation for American Cable is 414 F.2d 661.] 22 The complaint did not allege that Ruben Rodriguez was a supervisor nor was his name included during the hearing when Respondent stipulated that Max Jimenez and Augustin Silva were supervisors within the meaning of Sec 2(11) of the Act However, as heretofore indicated in this decision, it appears that Ruben Rodriguez at times occupied a status similar to that of Jimenez and Silva 23 190 NLRB 174 ( 1969), enfd 470 F 2d 1302 (C A 5, 1973) On the basis of the record testimony and the authorities indicated, I conclude and find that none of the authoriza- tion cards are invalid as contended by the Respondent. B. Did the Union Promise To Waive, or Reduce, the Initiation Fee? In Savair Mfg. Co., supra, the Supreme Court reversed the Board and found that a union interfered with an employee's rights as expressed in Section 7 of the Act to refrain from union activities when it offered to waive initia- tion fees for all employees who signed union "recognition slips" before a representation election. This is an argument which might be utilized in a representation election case (as the Savair Mfg Co. case was) in raising objections to an election, or conceivably it might be utilized in an unfair labor practice case as an argument against a Gissel24 reme- dy where it is sought by the General Counsel. However, in order for such an argument to be meaningful, there must be a showing that employees were generally informed that there would be a waiver, or substantial reduction, of the initiation fee for all employees who sign union authoriza- tion cards in advance of the election. Such is not the evi- dence in the instant case The evidence in this area consist- ed of the testimony by one obviously slightly confused witness who testified that he had "heard" that it would be substantially more expensive if he waited to loin the Union after Respondent's plant was organized. There is no evi- dence to indicate that such statement emanated from the Union or any of its agents or that such a policy was its usual practice. There is no evidence in this case that any of the employees who signed union authorization cards did so because of fear of the Union or because of concern that it might be more expensive to do so after an election was held among the employees. All of the evidence in this case tends to prove that the employees voluntarily and anxious- ly sought the Union in order to obtain its protection on behalf of all employees in acquiring job security and im- proving their general working conditions. Respondent's ar- gument has no merit. C. Is the Union Racially Prejudiced? The Respondent offered testimony, which was not refut- ed, to show that during the time of the picketing at Respondent's stores, the pickets directed remarks to poten- tial customers reflecting in an uncomplimentary manner on the owner's religious and/or semitic origin. The Respondent's counsel argues that union appeals to racial prejudice in an election campaign violates the laboratory conditions of the election, and the union should not be certified. Citing N.L R.B v. Schapiro and Whitehouse, Inc., 356 F.2d 675 (C.A. 4, 1966). The case cited was a reversal by the Fourth Circuit of the Board's decision; it dealt sole- ly with an objections to election type of case and therefore is readily distinguishable from the instant cases. In the cit- ed case the appeal was directed toward voters (employees) in a manner calculated to inflame racial feelings wholly unrelated to election issues. In the instant case the remarks 24 N L R B v Gissel Packing Co, Inc, 395 U S 575 (1969) 306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD were not directed toward the employees, and there is no evidence that the employees heard the remarks.25 More- over, even if the employees had heard the racial related remarks, there is no indication that the employees were, or would have been, restrained or coerced in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. The Mansion House case, supra, and the Bekins Moving & Storage Co., of Florida, Inc., case 26 were concerned with the question of whether or not the racial, or sexual, imbalance reflected within a union's membership constituted evidence of discrimination such as to deprive the union of the Board's processes. There was not one iota of evidence tending to show the racial mix of the Union herein involved 27 Respondent's arguments of racial prejudice are without merit. The cases cited by coun- sel are inapposite. VII. THE APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT The General Counsel has alleged the appropriate bar- gaining unit to be: All employees employed by Respondent at its retail store located at 10435 Laurel Canyon Boule- vard, Pacoima, California, excluding office clerical em- ployees, guards, professional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act. The complaint further alleges that since January 8, 1975, a majority of the employees of Respon- dent in the unit alleged to be appropriate have designated and desire the Union as their representative for the pur- pose of collective bargaining with Respondent. It is further alleged that since January 8, 1975, and continuing to date, the Union has requested and continues to request that Re- spondent recognize it as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative for the employees in the alleged appropriate unit and that Respondent has continually refused to recog- nize the Union as the representative of the employees 28 The Respondent's counsel argues that because on Janu- ary 10, 1975, the Respondent was the owner and operator of two retail meat stores having the characteristics and criteria which might otherwise be found by the Board to comprise a single appropriate unit, that therefore the single store at Pacoima cannot now be found to be an appropri- ate bargaining unit supporting a bargaining order. Counsel's argument, however ingenious, does not accord with the law. The RC petition filed by the Union is no longer relevant and as a matter of fact was dismissed by the Regional Director for Region 21 as reflected by Respondent's Exhibit 12. (Because complaint was issued in the instant case.) It is a fact that today the Respondent operates only one store-the retail meat market located in Pacoima, California. Under the current facts, there is noth- ing to indicate that the unit alleged is anything other than appropriate. The employees included within the unit have a community of interest and the office clericals, supervi- sors, and other statutory exclusions have been set forth. It is a typical unit frequently found by the Board to be appro- 25 Max Jimenez, a supervisor, testified that he heard some of the com- ments by the pickets 26 211 NLRB 138 (1974) 27 There was testimony to the effect that the Respondent's owner, appar- ently of Semitic origin or believed to be by the pickets, was a former member of Meat Cutters Local No 421 28 See G C Exh 2, a RC petition dated January 10, 1975 priate and I so find. The more important question with which we are here concerned is that of whether or not the Union represents, or did represent at the time the unfair labor practices occurred , a majority of the employees in the unit found to be appropriate. Enrique Gonzalez testified that on one of his occasional visits to the Pacoima store he copied the work schedule as it had been posted at the Pacoima store. This work sched- ule appears to be the work schedule of the employees for the week of January 13 through 20, 1975, and reflects that there were 11 employees scheduled for work that week. The owner, Newton Joseph, testified that he had eight full- time and five part-time employees employed during the week of January 13 through 19. When Newton Joseph was asked to name the employees that worked the week of Jan- uary 6 to 12, he was able to name I1 employees.29 The question then is how many of these employees had signed union authorization cards and did that number constitute a majority of those employed . Of the 11 employees named by Joseph, 2 were stipulated as being supervisors , namely, Max Jimenez and Augustin Silva, leaving only 9 employees constituting the unit heretofore found to be an appropriate bargaining unit . The General Counsel submitted , and I re- ceived in evidence, the union authorization cards of seven of these employees. 0 The General Counsel has clearly shown that a majority of the employees employed at the Pacoima, California, store had signed union authorization cards and desired that the Meat Cutters Local No. 421, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workers of North America, AFL-CIO, represent them as their exclu- sive bargaining representative , and I so find. VIII. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The conduct of the Respondent as set forth in sections IV, V, VI, and VII , above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent 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 com- merce and the free flow of commerce. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Newton Joseph, d/b/a Meat Packers International, the Respondent, is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Meat Cutters Local No. 421, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workers of North America, AFL- CIO, the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 29 The I I employees named by Newton Joseph as having been employed during the week of January 6 through 12 were as follows Max Jimenez, Rafael Banuelos , Socorro Juarez, Manuel Flores, Manuel Reyes, Alberto Vasquez, Saul Frias, Nicholas Castro, Guildardo Guerrero, Efren Barrera, and Augustin Silva 30 It is entirely possible that the name given by Newton Joseph as Saul Frias should have been Raul Frias, and if it were the latter name the Gener- al Counsel presented authorization cards from eight of the nine employees in the appropriate bargaining unit MEAT PACKERS INTERNATIONAL 307 3. All employees employed at the Respondent' s retail meat market located at 10435 Laurel Canyon Boulevard, Pacoima, California, excluding office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. The Union is the exclusive representative of a majori- ty of the employees in the aforesaid bargaining unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 5. Respondent, by the acts and conduct of its supervi- sors, Newton Joseph, Max Jimenez, and Augustin Silva, did interrogate employees regarding their union interest and activity, threaten employees with discharge if they sup- ported the Union, threaten employees with plant closure and loss of jobs if the employees joined or assisted the Union, and threaten employees with discharge unless they signed documents renouncing the Union and thereby en- gaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec- tion 8(a)(1) of the Act. 6. Respondent discharged the following named employ- ees on or about the dates shown: Isaac Gonza- lez-12/7/74, Alfredo Mendoza-12/13/74, Luis Marti- nez-12/16/74, Francisco Martinez-12/16/74, Meriel Gonzalez-12/16/74, Salvador Ortiz-12/18/74, Manuel Flores-1/26/75, Manuel Reyes-1/26/75, Enrique Gon- zalez aka Jesse Morgan-1/28/75, Antonio Mercado Vas- quez-1/16/74, and Olga Martinez-2/4/75, because of their interest in or activity on behalf of the Union and thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 7. Respondent discharged Augustin Silva on or about January 26, 1975, because Silva refused to engage in unfair labor practices as requested by the owner of Respondent and Respondent has thereby engaged in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY stated in the order of their seniority, or hiring date. If after all economically feasible reinstatements have been made, there remain employees included herein as having been wrongfully discharged, they shall be placed on a preferen- tial hire list, in order of seniority, and shall be offered rein- statement on the occasion of each vacancy or job opening as it may occur at the Pacoima store until each and every employee has been reinstated to a full-time permanent job or has voluntarily declined to accept such offered reinstate- ment. Respondent shall also be ordered to reimburse each of the discriminatees and to make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered as a result of discrimi- nation against them with the backpay and interest comput- ed in accordance with the Board's standards as set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). The General Counsel has requested that Respondent be ordered to forthwith bargain with the Union as a part of the remedial Order. In N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc., 395 U.S. 575 (1969), the Supreme Court clearly indicated that where the conduct of the Respondent has been so out- rageous and pervasive and of such a nature that their coer- cive effects cannot be eliminated by the application of tra- ditional remedies, a bargaining order may issue and be found appropriate even without inquiry into a union's ma- jority status. In the instant case, the General Counsel has not only shown that the Union represented a majority of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit, but the evidence is also overwhelming that Respondent has sys- tematically sought to dissipate the Union's strength and membership at each and every opportunity. I shall order that the Respondent recognize and bargain with the Union forthwith. Moreover, I regard the Respondent's unfair la- bor practices to have been of such a flagrant nature that I shall order the effective bargaining date to be January 10, 1975, the date on which the Union filed its representation petition, in keeping with the Board's recent decision, Trad- ing Port, Inc.3t Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommend- ed: The Respondent having discriminatorily discharged Isaac Gonzalez, Alfredo Mendoza, Luis Martinez, Francis- co Martinez, Mario Gonzalez, Salvador Ortiz, Manuel Flores, Manuel Reyes, Enrique Gonzalez aka Jesse Mor- gan, Antonio Mercado Vasquez, Olga Martinez, and Au- gustin Silva, I find it necessary that Respondent be ordered to reinstate each of them to their former or substantially equivalent job, displacing, if necessary, employees hired since the aforementioned employees were wrongfully dis- charged. If a job no longer exists, said employees shall be given such other job or jobs as each may be qualified to fill. Recognizing that Respondent now operates only one store, it is not the intent of this Order to compel Respondent to hire more employees than is economically representative of good business, but the discriminatees are to displace any and all current employees whose date of hire occurred after the hiring date of the discrimmatees named herein. The aforementioned discriminatorily dischargees are to be rein- ORDER32 The Respondent, Newton Joseph, d/b/a Meat Packers International , Pacoima, California, its officers, agents, suc- cessors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against em- ployees, or prospective employees, in regard to their hire, and tenure of employment, or any other terms or condi- tions of employment because they have engaged in con- certed activities for the purpose of mutual aid or protec- tion. 3i 219 NLRB 298 (1975) 32 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes 308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (b) Interrogating employees regarding their union inter- ests and activity, threatening employees with discharge if they support the Union, threatening employees with plant closure and the loss of jobs if the employees join or assist the Union, or threatening employees with discharge unless they sign documents renouncing the Union. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self- organization, to bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain from any and all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action I find will effec- tuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Isaac Gonzalez, Alfredo Mendoza, Luis Marti- nez, Francisco Martinez, Antonio Mercado Vasquez, Mar- io Gonzalez, Salvador Ortiz, Manuel Flores, Manuel Reyes, Enrique Gonzalez aka Jesse Morgan, Olga Marti- nez, and Augustin Silva full-time employment without prejudice to their seniority, or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision enti- tled "The Remedy." (b) Recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclu- sive representative of the employees in the bargain unit herein found to be appropriate as of January 10, 1975. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay- roll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports and all other records neces- sary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this recommended Order. (d) Post at its place of business in Pacoima, California, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 33 Cop- ies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Di- rector for Region 21, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Respon- dent immediately upon receipt thereof and be 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 Re- spondent to insure that said notices are not altered, de- faced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. Allegations of the complaint not specifically found here- in to be violative of the Act are to be dismissed. 33 In the event the Board's 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 "