Doral Building Services, Inc.

DORAL BUILDING SERVICES, INC. Doral Building Services, Inc. and Abel A. Palma and Juan Hernandez. Cases 31-CA-9403 and 31-CA-9420 January 13, 1981 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND TRUESDALE On September 30, 1980, Administrative Law Judge David G. Heilbrun issued the attached Deci- sion in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting 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 brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. 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 and hereby orders that the Respondent, Doral Building Services, Inc., Los Angeles, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. MEMBER JENKINS, dissenting in part: I agree with the majority's finding that Respon- dent discriminatorily discharged two employees shortly after the commencement of an organiza- tional drive among its employees, including the em- ployee who was the main exponent of unionization. I further agree that Respondent also conducted a series of meetings with apparently all of its employ- ' Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi- bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con- vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. In finding that Respondent did not create the impression of surveillance by certain statements made during its September 20, 1979, meeting with employees, we find it unnecessary to rely on fn. 19 of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision, inasmuch as no exceptions have been filed regard- ing the dismissal of this allegation. Respondent has excepted to the Administrative Law Judge's finding that Respondent's president, Alan Florea, threatened employee Abel A. Palma with job loss during one of its September 20 meeting. We find merit in this exception. The record reveals that Respondent discharged Palma on September 17, and contains no evidence that Palma was pre- sent at any of the September 20 meetings. This finding in no way affects the Administrative Law Judge's conclusions of law or his recommended Order and notice. ees, either individually or in groups, during which they were interrogated, promised benefits, and threatened with loss of jobs if they selected union representation. Due to the widespread and egre- gious nature of such misconduct, I consider a broad remedial order warranted under the standard set forth in Hickmort Foods, Inc., 242 NLRB 1357 (1979). DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE DAVID G. HEILBRUN, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard in Los Angeles, California, on May 13, 14, 15, 28, 29, and 30, 1980, based on a consolidated complaint alleging that Doral Building Services, Inc., herein called Respondent, violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act, by discharging Abel Palma and Juan Hernandez during September 1979 because they joined or assisted Stove, Furnace and Allied Appliance Workers International Union of N.A., Local 125B, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, or engaged in other protected concerted activities for the purpose of collec- tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, while contemporaneously interrogating employees concerning union activities, threatening employees with termination in connection with the Union, promising employees in- creased benefits in order to discourage union activities, and creating the impression of surveillance among em- ployees with respect to union activities. Upon the entire record, my observation of witnesses, and consideration of the post-hearing briefs,' I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT AND RESULTANT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Respondent's business was founded in October 1978 and by the following September Respondent had clean- ing contracts for eight separate buildings throughout metropolitan Los Angeles. 2 Its principal income was de- rived from custodial functions performed after hours at the headquarters building of Ralph M. Parsons Company in Pasadena and its adjoining annex. 3 As of September Respondent's management hierarchy was Alan Florea, I As to the General Counsel's brief, I read the name Palma as Gamboa in the penultimate line of p. 23. As to Respondent's brief, I note the erro- neous statement that Palma admitted performance of waxing work on Saturday, September 15, 1979, when in fact Palma unequivocally denied this. 2 Respondent maintains an office and principal place of business in Los Angeles, California, where it is engaged in providing janitorial and build- ing maintenance services, annually selling goods or services valued in excess of $50,000 to customers or business enterprises within California which themselves meet a jurisdictional standard of the Board other than indirect inflow or indirect outflow. I find, as is admitted, that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec. 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and otherwise that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec. 2(5). In the strict sense Respondent's services for a building at 1052 west Sixth Street, Los Angeles, were not com- menced until late October 1979. 3 All dates and named months hereafter are in 1979 unless expressly shown otherwise. 254 NLRB No. 23 105 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD president, 4 Octavio Gamboa, operations manager (both admitted supervisors), plus Oscar Sanabria and Ruben Hernandez, each titled "working foreman" (or "lead men") and assigned to oversee employee activity as they carried out their own duties in the Parsons headquarters and annex, respectively. 5 Rank-and-file employees en- gaged in trash removal, wiping, washing, bathroom maintenance, carpet cleaning, and special assignments, in- cluding floor stripping or waxing. Their dispersal throughout the various buildings ranged from 19 at Par- sons headquarters plus 14 at its annex, down to only I person at a certain location serviced. Most of the work occurred after daytime business hours on a shift that was typically 6 p.m. to 2:30 a.m. In August a number of the custodial employees spoke together about having collective representation, and des- ignated Palma to spearhead this objective. He contacted a functionary of the Union and received several dozen authorization cards for distribution. Palma handed these around to employees and gathered up completed ones, including at least one extra that had been solicited by Juan Hernandez. A representation petition was soon filed by the Union which led ultimately to a secret-ballot elec- tion. On September 10 Gamboa, accompanied by Sanabria, came upon Palma and Ruben Hernandez as they sat in an office holding magazines just before the scheduled quitting time. Written reprimands were issued to each of the presumed readers, ostensibly in keeping with Respon- dent's freshly implemented written policy statement on employee conduct and discipline. Palma refused to sign his reprimand as a matter of principle.6 At the end of the week following, Palma successfully volunteered for Sat- urday floorwork and performed this at Parsons head- quarters over an approximately 5-hour period that day. On September 17 an official of Parsons telephoned Florea to complain of important records being ruined over the weekend by sloppy spreading of cleaning liq- uids in the microfilm room. Florea placated the caller and immediately directed Gamboa to investigate. The upshot was a consensus view that Palma had performed the waxing faultily, warranting another written repri- mand. Gamboa testified that he prepared one and pre- sented it for the employee's acknowledgment which Palma again refused to do. The copy produced by Re- spondent at the hearing had several lines of remarks printed by Gamboa to describe the dereliction. Palma testified that he was shown only a blank paper without content as to remarks and it was this he refused to sign 4 Dory Florea, wife of Alan Florea, holds corporate offices and per- forms administrative duties for the enterprise, including purchasing and recordkeeping. I Respondent designated certain other individuals, not at issue here, as working foremen in the smaller buildings it covered. Concerning all oper- ations Respondent only considered four persons, including Sanabria and Ruben Hernandez, to be "foremen." 6 Palma testified that as first presented to him, and never again seen by him, the September 10 reprimand was blank except for its date. Respect- ing Resp. Exh. 4 it is an oddity approaching incredulousness that Ruben Hernandez should both sign and "witness" his own written warning. This was the first hint of what overall probative evidence shows to the effect that key written reprimand records advanced by Respondent are mere afterthoughts designed to buttress a defense to this case, and devoid of authenticity as to being bona fide formalizing of discipline. both in principle and because he disputed having waxed any area improperly.7 When Florea became aware that Palma had refused to sign an acknowledgment of repri- mand for the second time, he testified to determining that it represented failure to recognize the seriousness of offenses being committed and thus warranted discharge. Palma was accordingly terminated effective September 17 with a written notice indicating "insubordination" as the particular reason. On September 20 Florea and Gamboa went to the Pasadena building in which Juan Hernandez worked alone to converse with him. They found him out of cus- todial uniform, having instead donned a 48-inch plastic liner over his clothes. Gamboa testified that as instructed by Florea he promptly prepared and delivered to Juan Hernandez a warning notice, written in Spanish, for such "misconduct" involving personal use of company proper- ty.8 Juan Hernandez denied ever receiving such a docu- ment. On September 24 a push broom ordinarily used by Juan Hernandez in his work was missing as he came to start a shift. After learning of this Gamboa issued a writ- ten reprimand concerning the lost, stolen, or misplaced property with its remarks section again printed out in Spanish. Receipt of this second reprimand is also denied. At the end of this shift Gamboa found Juan Hernandez sleeping on a sofa at 2:45 a.m., and terminated him be- cause of this with confirming written notice. Palma had filed the charge in Case 31-CA-9403 on September 18. Florea testified to being telephoned that day by a Mr. Soto, who identified himself as a represen- tative of the Board calling to advise of the charge and its general ramifications. In consequence of this Florea held a series of meetings on September 20 with assem- bled employees of the larger buildings or individual em- ployees as the case might be. He was accompanied in these by his wife and Gamboa, the latter serving as trans- lator of Florea's remarks to the Spanish-speaking em- ployees. Former employee Ramiro Aleman testified that, sometime after signing an authorization card on Septem- ber 12, he was one of six on seven persons in attendance at the Parsons headquarters building around 11 p.m. as Florea spoke. He heard it said that the signing of cards was known, that Respondent's predecessor had been can- celed by Parsons because its employees unionized, and that people should mull over whether the Union could be a provider of work. Maria Yepiz, now married to Juan Hernandez, testified in a more elaborate recollec- tion of being told at such a meeting that to support the Union would mean job loss because Respondent could leave Parsons and acquire other buildings, declining to continue employment of the present work force even if 7 Palma had actually privately engaged a fellow employee to assist him during the overtime work, and although this became known to Respon- dent it never sought to investigate whether the second person had caused damage. 8 Juan Hernandez testified that Florea and Gamboa spoke further with him during the plastic bag episode, asking why he supported the Union and pointing out that a more desirable floor space assignment if not his job itself would be better insured by a vote for the Company. 9 A person of that name was a Board agent on the Board's Region 21 staff during September. 106 DORAL BUILDING SERVICES, INC. imploringly asked. She added being told that Parsons had "dumped" the earlier company for reasons associat- ed with unionism, that pay raises were associated to re- jecting the Union, that thought should be given to how employment could be continued into the future, and that alien status might be examined. Former employee Errol James recalled remarks from his meeting about Parsons' opposition to unionized custodial contractors, and that at yearend Respondent might be expected to give a supper and bonus. Florea testified that each of his seven speech- es on September 20 were essentially identical. His ver- sion was that of saying that the known passing around of union cards constituted a lawful right, that the nature of the business foreclosed any job guarantees, and that Par- sons had chosen Respondent after previously using a unionized contractor.' Palma testified that approximately 2 months before his discharge he had spoken to Gamboa to ask whether em- ployees might expect better employment benefits. Then about a month after that while at work one evening he again raised the subject with Gamboa, and this time ex- pressly associated it with the possibility of employees contacting a union. Palma also testified that following this he was at Gamboa's house for a family birthday party in or about early September, and the two spoke at or around 8 p.m. in the presence of Isaias Donado. After inconclusive discussion of Donado's job prospects with Respondent, Palma pressed for a pay raise, which Gamboa said would be in the offing for him when a new building contract was secured; this was also in relation to Palma's ceasing his persistent interest in a union. Palma testified further that Gamboa elaborated on this by saying that he should stop dealing with the Union, which Palma answered would not be done because coworkers had chosen him for a key role in such regard. Gamboa flatly denied such a conversation, testifying that, while a birthday party for his son did take place in early Septem- ber, he himself had arrived after a fatiguing day on a second job and had gone directly to bed without speak- ing to any person. Sanabria was at this party until about 9 p.m. but denied seeing Gamboa at any time, recalling also that he watched television in a bedroom at one point. ' Donado, a cousin of Palma, testified to being at the party and speaking with Gamboa about job pros- pects. Donado could not testify as to any details of a conversation otherwise engaged in between Gamboa and Palma. James testified that in late September he was in earshot as Gamboa told another employee by vernacular expres- sion that an election win by the Union would cause loss of jobs among the custodial work force. 1 2 In the underlying representation case a Regional Di- rector's Decision and Direction of Election had found 'o Gamboa testified to having forgotten much of what was said during these speeches, remembering primarily that authorization cards and the unionized status of the contractor preceding Respondent were mentioned. I I The record does not establish how bedrooms were in the Gamboa home, or that the television viewing engaged in by Sanabria and also at least Palma took place in the bedroom used by Gamboa. 1s In testimony intended to support par. 8(f) of the complaint, as amended, James recalled a late November inquiry about the Union by Gamboa as ice cream was being shared. I discount this innocuous utter- ance, and find par. 8(f) unsupported by adequate probative evidence. both Sanabria and Ruben Hernandez not to be supervi- sors within the meaning of the Act based on a stipulation of the parties taken in connection with the testimony of Florea alone. Here their status is placed at issue by an amendment to the complaint made at the outset of the hearing, and based on the explanation that knowledge of protected activities may be imputed to Respondent more solidly should either individual be held as its agent. Both had jobs of similar content, although Sanabria's was wider in scope because of the greater number of employ- ees working in his building. They both relayed the instructions of Gamboa and were responsible to at least observe fulfillment of all custodial tasks over the course of the evening shift. Sanabria ordinarily spent the first several hours at the Parsons headquarters location, which was used by Respondent for an operations center. In this connection he frequently took calls from employ- ees or persons calling for them to report absences. Both working foremen testified that in such an event their re- sponsibility was to notify Gamboa and carry out his di- rective as to temporary coverage. With respect to repri- mands, which each signed them on occasion, here, too, the testimony was that this was done only at Gambos's direction and in fulfillment of his decisions. Sanabria and Ruben Hernandez each denied having any influential role in the hiring process or termination of employees beyond mere notification to Gamboa of persons available on the one hand or of chronically poor performance on the other. Ruben Hernandez and Sanabria were paid at hourly rates approximately $1 and $2.25 per hour more, respectively, than Respondent's next highest earner among custodial employees. I find little from the evi- dence to suggest true supervisory status, and it appears that the authority role of both persons was as much cul- tural as anything. I find their participation in the flow of managerial authority to be principally routine without a showing of independent judgment being used to assign, direct, or generally govern an employee's performance. This takes into account the high supervisor/supervised ratio thus obtaining, a result that I nevertheless believe harmonizes with the highly structured and repetitive nature of task groupings, plus Gamboa's near constant closeness to the predominant Parsons complex during hours of work. Because I do not deem Sanabria or Ruben Hernandez to be statutory supervisors or agents of Respondent, I disregard testimony as to their utter- ances or inquisitiveness on the matter of unionism and do not impute employer knowledge of union activities to Respondent on because of what either one may have learned. On the subject of credibility generally, and as it shapes inferential conclusions that follow, I accept the testimony of the General Counsel's witnesses and reject key aspects of what Respondent projects. Palma and Yepiz were par- ticularly forthright with convincing demeanor and con- sistency shown. Contrarily, Gamboa was vague, lacked any impressive capacity for recall, and displayed a sus- pect demeanor. More importantly, I am satisfied that Florea has revealed only a fraction of his true knowl- edge and remarks. Although quite sophisticated as to in- dustry practices and union dealings by reason of a recent 107 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD past position, he gave every impression of evading a con- cession of when he first became aware of organizing ac- tivities and vacillated pointedly on the matter on just when, and by what combination of managerial outlook, it was determined to discharge Palma. Florea was particu- larly confused and evasive on the subject of just when he had learned about employees signing authorization cards, although admitting that Gamboa was his usual courier in such regard. The discharges at issue shape up as classic pretextual action. In both instances the persons terminated were no- tably active in a fresh organizing campaign and had pre- viously worked uneventfully for many months.' 3 Each was terminated within scant weeks of the advent of orga- nizing activity and the derelictions of which they were accused reveal themselves as either innocuous or discri- minatorily viewed. I am most impressed by two particu- lar instances in which Respondent showed itself evasive or unconcealably hostile to unionism. The first of these involved crediting Palma and Donado over Gamboa with respect to whether or not a conversation occurred at the latter's home in early September which could impart full knowledge to Respondent of Palma's unioniz- ing objectives. Gamboa presented himself poorly as a matter of demeanor, and told quite a different story of the September 20 speeches from Florea himself. 14 On this finding of early employer knowledge, and the dem- onstrated hostility toward unionism as expressed repeat- edly in the series of meetings with employees, I infer that Palma was first issued a sham reprimands' and subse- quently discharged on the unsupported claim that he had caused customer chagrin. I also reject Respondent's claim that Palma's refusal to sign reprimands reflected a serious disdain of the employer's interest, believing this to be a transparently faulty excuse while noting, too, that Florea described himself as experienced in labor negotia- tions stemming from former employment. Aside from the intriguing question of whether Respondent's newly pro- II Juan Hernandez testified to distributing a dozen authorization cards, a number considerably more than Palma had recalled as his contribution. More significantly, Palma credibly testified that in August he had re- marked to Gamboa about an abiding interest in higher pay which had al- ready caused him and others to plan on joining a union. 14 Throughout this case the dual-language aspect must be kept in mind. Most rank-and-file employees spoke essentially no English, while others had but slight comprehension. Sanabria and Ruben Hernandez were slightly more fluent, although each required a Spanish translator, while Gamboa spoke in a heavily accented fashion but with an essential command of conversational English. Florea and his wife are each Eng- lish-speaking, so with respect to the speeches in particular it must be em- phasized that, regardless of what Florea said, the controlling consider- ation is what meaning Gamboa projected in the translation. The General Counsel's witnesses attributed unlawful implication of job loss being con- veyed at this time, and, although it is adamantly denied by Florea, Re- spondent's own witness, Miguel Murillo, provides powerful corrobora- tion on the point. It must thus be inferred that either Florea and Gamboa scripted fear-inducing remarks or that Gamboa simply extemporized the objectionable statements. " This is one of the most critical points of the case because Gamboa guilelessly admitted to the magazine reading reprimand after stalking both Palma and Ruben Hernandez in order to "catch them" in an offense. I am satisfied that this was simply one phase of a crude strategy to discri- minatorily terminate the chief union activist, noting that if any measure of truth was present Respondent's more prudent course would have been to replace the working foreman at the annex rather than chance his con- tinuing unreliability. mulgated written policies on conduct and discipline arose at the first inkling of organizing activities among employ- ees, only one reprimand had issued before the Palma/ Juan Hernandez flurry, and no management official of Respondent was even able to recall a termination for cause over the first 10 months of operations. This rationale harmonizes with the recently decided Wright Line, A Division of Wright Line, Inc., 251 NLRB 1083 (1980). In that case the Board noted no real need to distinguish pretext and dual-motive cases, but more im- portantly read the United States Supreme Court's Mt. Healthy'6 decision as rejecting the "in part" test, 7 while creating a separate employer burden of proof with re- spect to potentially neutralizing what is shown prima facie as unlawful "motivating factor(s)." Here the Gener- al Counsel has amply met the initial burden of proof, while Respondent has failed to show that the discharges at issue would have nevertheless taken place. Of the six claimed derelictions involved,' 8 I find that Palma was not in fact the person causing any damage to Parsons' microfilm records, while the other five reasons were ad- vanced spuriously in an area of claimed alarm and dismay which does not ring true. Respecting alleged violations of Section 8(a)(1), I am satisfied that Respondent has acted impermissibly in regard to interrogation, threats, and promise of bene- fits. ' The credible testimony of Aleman, Yepiz, and James establishes unlawful interrogation at the meetings of September 20, while Palma and Hernandez were each plainly threatened with job loss by Florea in relation to the Union. This finding harmonizes with James' credible testimony that in late September he heard Gamboa ex- press the same theme to a rank-and-file employee. The two discriminatorily discharged employees were also, on September I and 20, respectively, promised beneficial fu- tures with Respondent in exchange for their cessation of further union activity. Accordingly, I render conclusions of law that Respon- dent, by interrogating employees concerning their union activities, by threatening employees with loss of jobs if they select the Union as their collective-bargaining rep- resentative, by promising benefits in order to discourage union activities, and by discharging Abel Palma and Juan Hernandez because of their membership in the Union, has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the 'e Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977). 17 Wright Line issued on August 27, 1980, and was presumably unavail- able to Counsel for the General Counsel regarding her own brief of that date in which the notion of discharge "in main part motivated" by pro- tected activity is argued. I Which derelictions were: (I) Reading while on duty, (2) damaging customer property, (3) refusing to sign warning notices, (4) wearing a plastic liner, (5) involvement with the disappearance of a push broom, and (6) sleeping while at work. t9 I do not find that remarks concerning how Respondent knew that employees signed union authorization cards or that it might detect union sympathies in the future because of secret-ballot voting results constitute the sort of conduct contemplated by the doctrine of creating the impres- sion of surveillance. Such taunting or tactical-type remarks are not to be condoned and yet at the same time do not constitute unfair labor prac- tices. 108 DORAL BUILDING SERVICES, INC. Act, but that it has not violated the Act in any respect other than as specifically found. Disposition Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER2 0 The Respondent, Doral Building Services, Inc., Los Angeles, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging or in any other manner discriminating against employees to discourage their membership in Stove, Furnace and Allied Appliance Workers Interna- tional Union of N.A., Local 125B, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. (b) Interrogating employees concerning their union ac- tivities. (c) Threatening employees with loss of jobs if they select the Union as their collective-bargaining representa- tive. (d) Promising benefits in order to discourage union ac- tivities. (e) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranted them in Section 7 of the Act.2 1 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Abel Palma and Juan Hernandez reinstate- ment to their former positions of employment, without prejudice to seniority or other rights and privileges, or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent jobs, discharging, if necessary, any employees hired as replacements, and make them whole, in the manner pro- vided in F W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977),22 for any loss of earnings incurred as a result of their being discharged. (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time- cards, personnel records and reports, and all other re- cords necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. 20 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. at I do not find Respondent's violations to have the extent, nor to show the proclivity, warranting a broad remedial order as issued in Hick- mott Foods. Inc., 242 NLRB 1357 (1979). 22 See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). (c) Post at its Los Angeles, California, places of busi- ness the attached notice marked "Appendix." 23 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Direc- tor for Region 31, after being duly signed by Respondent or an authorized representative, shall be posted by it im- mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are cus- tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re- spondent to insure that such notices are not altered, de- faced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the consolidated com- plaint, as amended, be dismissed in all other respects. 23 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 Pursu- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT discharge or in any other manner discriminate against employees to discourage their membership in Stove, Furnace and Allied Appli- ance Workers International Union of N.A., Local 125B, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their union activities. WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of jobs if they select the Union as their collective-bar- gaining representative. WE WILL NOT promise benefits in order to dis- courage union activities. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner in- terfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. WE WILL offer Abel Palma and Juan Hernandez reinstatement to their former positions of employ- ment or, if in either case that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without preju- dice to seniority or other rights and privileges pre- viously enjoyed, and make them whole for losses in pay resulting from their being discharged during September 1979, with interest. DORAL BUILDING SERVICES, INC. 109