Goodman Investment Co., Inc., Perman Con-Struction Co., Inc., P. I. Partnership, And Goodman Group, Inc.

340 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Goodman Investment Company, Inc,, Perman Con- struction Company, Inc., P. I. Partnership, and Goodman Group, Inc. and Service Employees Local No. 1, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO. Cases 13-CA-25433, 13- CA-25524, 13-CA-25580, and 13-RC-16747 January 17, 1989 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS CRACRAFT AND HIGGINS On July 31, 1986, Administrative Law Judge Walter H. Maloney Jr. issued the attached decision. The Respondents filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed answering briefs. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, I and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order as modified2 and set forth in full below. 1. In affirming the judge's finding that the Re- spondents violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by canceling a parking space used by Damian Schiop because of his vote for the Union in the election, we rely in particular on credited testimony that is inconsistent with the Respondents' Wright Line3 defense that our dissenting colleague finds suffi- cient. Owner Gary Goodman sought to suggest that the parking space would have been canceled regardless of Schiop's union activities, because a 4- month lease expired in mid-December 1985, and the person for whom the space had originally been leased had ceased using it after July 1985, when the Respondents moved their offices to a new location about four blocks from the old one. Goodman testi- fied that he did not know, until an invoice for a new 4-month period arrived in December, that the space was still being rented after the move and that ' Absent exceptions , we adopt pro forma the judge's finding that the unlawful issuance of a warning letter, unaccompanied by any overt dis- crimination in hire or tenure, does not constitute a violation of Sec. 8(a)(3) of the Act. The judge referred to 730 N . Franklin Street, Graphic Arts Building, and Central Arts Building interchangeably. 2 We shall modify the judge's recommended Order to conform with standard remedial language. In accordance with our decision in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 ( 1987), interest on and after January 1, 1987, shall be com- puted at the "short-term Federal rate" for the underpayment of taxes as set out in the 1986 amendment to 26 U.S.C. § 6621. Interest on amounts accrued prior to January 1, 1987 (the effective date of the 1986 amend- ment to 26 U.S.C. § 6621), shall be computed in accordance with Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977). a Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cit. 1981), cert . denied 455 U.S. 989 ( 1982). he decided against continuing to rent it because it was a needless expense. This testimony is contra- dicted by Damian Schiop's credited testimony that on November 13, 2 days before the election, Good- man explicitly threatened him with loss of continu- ing use of the parking space if he voted for the Union in the election. Having thus used the park- ing space as an incentive for an antiunion vote, Goodman can hardly be credited in his claim that he would have discontinued renting the space re- gardless of the election outcome.4 2. In accordance with the Board's broad discre- tion to fashion appropriate remedies for violations of the Act,5 we agree with the judge that the ap- propriate remedy for the unlawful transfer of Peter Schiop to Orleans Plaza is reinstatement to his former job at 730 N. Franklin Street and backpay with interest. As the judge stated, Schiop's resigna- tion from the position to which he was illegally transferred is irrelevant for remedial purposes. In affirming the judge, we find no merit in the Re- spondents' contention that because of a stipulation concerning Peter Schiop's post-transfer resignation we are constrained to conclude that Schiop would not have continued working for the Respondent at the N. Franklin Street location. Peter Schiop's credited testimony establishes that he resigned from the job at Orleans Plaza because of working condi- tions there (the necessity of working outside as well as inside and the lack of heat in some parts of the building after hours) and that he would gladly return to his old job at 730 N. Franklin Street if it were offered to him. This testimony is not contra- dicted by the parties' stipulation that Schiop had signed a resignation letter stating that his job con- flicted with his school duties. Because the parties did not stipulate that the letter reflected Schiop's 4 Member Cracraft would not find that discontinuing payments for the parking space that Damian Schiop used violated Sec. 8(a)(3) and (1). The parking space was originally leased on a quarterly basis for Property Manager LeBrun and was used by Damian after LeBrun's mid-July de- parture . In mid-December , when the lease on the space expired and the Respondents stopped paying the rent, a secretary told Damian he could no longer park there. Member Cracraft finds the apparent conflict in tes- timony on which the majority relies to be insignificant. Even accepting that Goodman's knowledge in November that Damian Schiop was using the parking space conflicts with Goodman's claim that he did not know until December that the space was still being rented, Member Cracraft fails to see the relevance of this conflict to the ultimate issue : when the lease expired in December, would the Respondents have continued to cover payment for Damian's parking space even in the absence of his union activities? The Respondents took no action with regard to Da- mian's parking privileges upon learning the election results and allowed Damian to continue using the parking space for the remainder of the lease. It does not appear from the record that his use of the parking space was anything other than a temporary privilege afforded him due to the departure of the property manager . Thus, assuming that the General Counsel has made a prima facie case, the Respondents have demonstrated that they would have terminated the parking privilege without regard to Damian's union activities. 5 Fibreboard Corp. v. NLRB, 379 U.S. 203, 215-216 (1964). 292 NLRB No. 45 GOODMAN INVESTMENT CO real motive for quitting and because the judge credited Schiop's testimony concerning his real reasons, we find that the stipulation does not affect Schiop s right to reinstatement to his former posi tion Additionally, we shall order that the after-hours cleaning work at 730 N Franklin Street be re turned to the bargaining unit As the judge found, the Respondents manipulated the unit and its work to avoid performing the after-hours work with their own employees He implicitly found an un lawful transfer of unit work as part of the unlawful transfer of Peter Schiop The after hours work at 730 N Franklin Street was transferred to Business Support Systems and its subcontractor when Schiop was transferred in an attempt to ensure that there would be no work at 730 N Franklin Street for him to do Accordingly, we shall order the work returned to the unit 6 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondents, Goodman Investment Company, Inc, Perman Construction Company, Inc, P I Partnership, and Goodman Group, Inc, Chicago, Illinois, their officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Coercively interrogating employees concern ing their union sympathies and union activities (b) Promising employees pay raises and improve ments in benefits if they will abandon their support for the Union (c) Granting increases in pay in order to per suade employees to abandon their support for the Union, provided that nothing herein shall be con- strued to require the Respondents to withdraw any increase in pay or benefits that they have hereto fore granted (d) Instructing employees not to engage in union activities (e) Threatening employees with loss of benefits, loss of employment, disciplinary actions, or any other unspecified trouble in order to persuade them to cease engaging in union activities (f) Reprimanding or issuing written disciplinary warnings to employees in reprisal for engaging in union activities (g) Discouraging membership in or activities on behalf of Service Employees Local No 1, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, or any 6 We note that pars 6 and 8 of the December 5 1985 complaint in Case 13-CA-25433 clearly allege that the Respondents violated Sec 8(a)(3) by transferring unit work belonging to employee Pet[er] Schiop to a subcontractor In addition we find that this issue was actually liti gated at the hearing 341 other labor organization, by transferring employees out of a collective bargaining unit, withdrawing benefits, transferring unit work, or otherwise dis criminating against them in their hire or tenure (h) In any other manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act 2 Take the following affirmative action neces- sary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Transfer back to the bargaining unit the after hours cleaning work at 730 N Franklin Street (b) Offer Peter Schiop immediate and full rein statement to his former job at 730 N Franklin Street or, if that job no longer exists, to a substan tially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or privileges previous ly enjoyed, and make him and Damian Schiop whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against them, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the judge's decision (c) Remove from their personnel records the dis- ciplinary warning given to Damian Schiop on or about December 23, 1985, and any reference to the transfer of Peter Schiop to Orleans Plaza, refrain from using the warning and the transfer as a basis for future disciplinary action, and notify Damian Schiop and Peter Schiop in writing of this action (d) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copy ing, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order (e) Post at the Respondents' Chicago, Illinois places of business, including their office building at 730 N Franklin Street, copies of the attached notice marked Appendix 7 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 13, after being signed by the Respondents' authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondents immediately upon receipt and main tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to em- ployees are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material 7 If 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 Nation al 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 342 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (f) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Respondents have taken to comply. DIRECTION IT IS DIRECTED that the ballot of Petru (Peter) Schiop be opened and counted and that a revised tally of ballots be issued in Case 13-RC-16747. IT IS FURTHER DIRECTED that, should the revised tally of ballots show that a majority of the votes have been cast for the Union , then the Regional Director for Region 13 shall issue a certification of representative. IT IS FURTHER DIRECTED that, should the revised tally of ballots show that a majority of the votes have not been cast for the Union , then the election shall be set aside and a rerun election shall be con- ducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for Region 13. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice. Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights. To organize To form, join, or assist any union To bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choice To act together for other mutual aid or pro- tection To choose not to engage in any of these protected concerted activities. WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate you con- cerning your union sympathies and activities. WE WILL NOT promise you pay raises and im- provements in benefits in order to persuade you to abandon your support for the Union. WE WILL NOT grant increases in pay in order to persuade you to abandon your support for the Union; provided that nothing herein shall be con- strued to require us to withdraw any increase in pay or benefits that we have heretofore granted. WE WILL NOT instruct you to refrain from en- gaging in union activities. WE WILL NOT threaten you with loss of benefits, loss of employment, disciplinary action, or any other unspecified trouble in order to persuade you not to support the Union. WE WILL NOT reprimand or issue written disci- plinary warnings to you in reprisal for engaging in union activities. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or ac- tivities on behalf of Service Employees Local No. 1, Service Employees International Union, AFL- CIO, or any other labor organization, by transfer- ring you out of a collective-bargaining unit, with- drawing benefits , transferring unit work, or other- wise discriminating against you in your hire or tenure. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL transfer back to the bargaining unit the after-hours cleaning work at 730 N. Franklin Street. WE WILL offer Peter Schiop immediate and full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed and WE WILL make him and Damian Schiop whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from the transfer and the loss of parking privileges, re- spectively, less any net interim earnings, plus inter- est. WE WILL remove from our personnel records the disciplinary warning given to Damian Schiop on or about December 23, 1985 , and any reference to the transfer of Peter Schiop to Orleans Plaza, WE WILL refrain from using the warning and the transfer as a basis for future disciplinary action, and WE WILL notify Damian Schiop and Peter Schiop in writing of this action. GOODMAN INVESTMENT COMPANY, INC., PERMAN CONSTRUCTION COM- PANY, INC., P . I. PARTNERSHIP, AND GOODMAN GROUP, INC. Alan Hellman, Esq., for the General Counsel. Stephen W. Schwab and Mark L. Shapiro, Esqs., of Chica- go, Illinois, for the Respondent. Paul R. Klenck, Esq., of Chicago, Illinois, for the Charg- ing Party. DECISION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT A. Statement of the Case WALTER H. MALONEY, JR., Administrative Law Judge. This case was heard before me at Chicago, Illi- nois, on three unfair labor practice complaints , consoli- GOODMAN INVESTMENT CO dated for hearing and then amended at the hearing i which allege that Respondents Goodman Investment Company, Inc (Goodman Investment), Perman Con struction Company, Inc (Perman) P I Partnership, and Goodman Group Inc, are a single integrated employer who violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act S Con solidated with the three complaints is a representation case 3 in which a challenge and objections to the conduct of an election are pending Specifically the complaints allege that the respondents threatened an employee with loss of parking benefits if he did not stop supporting the Union, warned an employee that his continued support for the Union would cause him problems, coercively so licited an employee to withdraw his support from the Union, revoked an employees pre paid parking privilege because he supported the Union, issued several warning letters to an employee which were prompted by the em ployee s union activities, promised an employee addition al work and the use of an apartment to induce him to reject the Union, solicited employee grievances with a view toward adjusting them promised an employee addi tional insurance benefits if he rejected the Union coer cively interrogated employees concerning their union sympathies and activities threatened to impose upon an r The principal docket entries in the complaint cases are as follows Charge filed against Respondents Goodman Investment and Perman by Service Employees Local No I Service Employees International Union AFL-CIO (the Union) in Case 13-CA-25433 on October 25 1985 com plaint issued by Regional Director Region 13 against those Respondents on December 5 1985 Respondent Goodman Investment and Perman s answer and motion to dismiss the complaint filed on December 31 1985 order denying motion to dismiss issued by associate chief administrative law judge on January 22 1986 amended answer filed by both Respond ents on February 10 1986 charge filed against Respondents Goodman Investment and Perman by Union in Case 13-CA-25524 on November 27 1985 complaint issued by Regional Director Region 13 against both Respondents on December 27 1985 order consolidating Cases 13-CA- 25433 and 13-CA-25524 issued by Regional Director Region 13 on De cember 30 1985 motion to dismiss complaint filed by Respondents on January 9 1986 and dismissed by associate chief administrative law judge on January 22 1986 charge filed against Respondents Goodman Investment and Perman by the Union in Case 13-CA-25580 on Decent her 19 1985 complaint issued against both Respondents by the Regional Director Region 13 on January 14 1986 order further consolidating cases issued by Regional Director Region 13 on January 17 1986 Re spondent s answer filed on January 27 1986 hearing held on April 28 29 30 and May 1 1986 in Chicago Illinois and briefs filed with me by the General Counsel the Charging Party and the Respondents on or before June 17 1986 2 For reasons discussed more fully later on I find and conclude that Respondents Goodman Investment Company Inc Perman Construction Company Inc P I Partnership and Goodman Group Inc are a single employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec 2(2) (6) and (7) of the Act The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec 2(5) of the Act a The principal docket entries in the representation case are as follows Petition filed by the Union on September 5 1985 in Case 13-RC-16747 seeking an election in a unit of all full time and regular part time janitori al maintenance employees of Perman and Goodman Investment located at 730 North Franklin Street Chicago Illinois with the usual exclusions Representation case hearing held in Chicago Illinois on September 20 and 24 1985 Decision and Direction of Election issued by Regional Di rector Region 13 on October 9 1985 Representation election conducted on November 15 1985 resulting in a vote of I to 0 in favor of the Union with one determinative challenged ballot Objections to the conduct of the election filed by the Union on November 19 1985 Supplemental de cision on challenged ballot and objections issued by Regional Director Region 13 on December 11 1985 in which he referred the issues to hearing and consolidated the representation case with the pending com plaint cases 343 employee more onerous working conditions and assign ments because of his union activities, granted an employ ee a wage increase during the pendency of a representa tion petition for the purpose of inducing him to abandon his support for the Union and subcontracted out the work regularly performed by an employee and transfer ring him outside the bargaining unit in order to discour age his union activities and to create a one man bargain ing unit in which a representation election could not be held Most of these allegations (t e , events taking place between September 5 and November 15) were also liti gated as objectionable conduct affecting the result of the election The Respondents deny that they are a single in tegrated employer, that the Board has any jurisdiction over any of them because of the failure to establish that individually they did sufficient business to fall within the Board s commerce requirements, deny the commission of any individual unfair labor practices alleged, and main tarn that the Board had no right to conduct the Novem ber 15 election because the unit in which it took place was a one man unit On these contentions the issues herein were joined 4 B The Unfair Labor Practices and Alleged Objectionable Conduct Gary D Goodman and his family are engaged in real estate investment and related construction through a myriad of corporations four of which are respondents in this proceeding Goodman Investment and Perman are wholly owned by Gary Goodman himself who is presi dent and chairman of the board of both corporations P I Partnership is owned by Gary Goodman, his father and his brother in law Goodman Group Inc is a corpo rate entity which performs certain administrative services for the corporations which make up what might broadly be called Goodman enterprises Prominent in this case are two older loft buildings on Chicago s near north side located respectively at 730 North Franklin Street and at 414 North Orleans The former is referred to as the Graphic Arts Building and the latter as Orleans Plaza The two buildings are about four blocks apart Legal title to the North Franklin Street Building is held by a bank under a peculiar Illinois real property arrangement known as a land trust Benefi cial interest in the trust lies in P I Partnership, in which Gary Goodman has a minority interest P I Partnership also owns a shopping center at Jacksonville Illinois, and another shopping center at Albuquerque, New Mexico Goodman Investment manages the North Franklin Street property and up to July 1985 maintained its office on the premises Goodman Investment receives a manage ment fee from P I Partnership for services rendered in the day to day management of the Graphic Arts Build mg The North Franklin Street Building, or Graphic Arts Building is a seven story loft warehouse which Good man Investment and P I Partnership have been trans forming into a low rent office building specializing in tenants who are in the advertising and graphic arts indus 4 Errors in the transcript have been noted and corrected 344 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tries It has about 86,000 square feet of rentable space and by now is about 90 percent occupied To perform the construction work necessary to convert this building from warehouse and industrial use to office use Gary Goodman and a carpenter named Murray Peretz formed Perman, a corporation taking its name from the Good man and Peretz surnames Beginning in April 1982 Perman began to remodel the entire building and has nearly completed this task Having done so, Perman has recently begun to remodel the Orleans Plaza Building, where both Perman and Goodman Investment now make their joint office Perman also does work for Goodman Investment at two residential apartments managed by Goodman Investment All but the sixth floor of the Graphic Arts Building are occupied by tenants who lease compartmentalized of fices Tenants are individually billed for heat electricity, and other utilities for the space they occupy and are re sponsible for cleaning and maintaining their own prem ises On the sixth floor , Goodman Investment maintains a suite of small individual offices and some common space for the tenants of those offices Beginning in 1983, it leased space adjacent to those offices for a 3 year period to a secretarial service called Business Support Systems For a stipulated monthly rental Business Support Sys tems was obligated to provide secretarial service to the tenants of the sixth floor offices The kind of services to be rendered as well as the charges for those services was spelled out in the lease The lease also obligated Business Support Systems to provide janitorial service to the sixth floor office tenants and authorized a $75 per month offset in rent for each office to which janitorial services were provided By setting up this type of ar rangement for a limited number of tenants Goodman In vestment hoped to attract tenants of limited means who would then move to larger quarters on other floors as their operations expanded Business Support Systems proved to be an unsatisfac tory contractor but not so unsatisfactory that Goodman would terminate its lease before the lease expired in Jan uary 1986 5 Among other things, Business Support Sys tems began to fail in its obligation to provide janitorial services to sixth floor tenants From time to time it also defaulted on its rental payments to Goodman Since the Respondents themselves were directly obligated to sixth floor tenants to provide janitorial services 6 they had to step into the breach left by their contractors default and they did so by providing this service with their own em ployees In the summer of 1984 Gary Goodman hired Adrian Schiop to be the janitor at the Graphic Arts Building He was hired upon the recommendation of Goodman s mother who is engaged in another phase of Goodman s 5 Apparently two of the original three partners in this enterprise either died or withdrew leaving one remaining partner who attempted to carry on under the name of Hello Answering Service 6 The lease signed by Business Support Systems provided In addition tenant will keep the conference room in clean orderly condition at all times and provide basic janitorial services to the mdi vidual offices including nightly emptying of wastebaskets vacuum mg carpets once a week and dusting furniture twice a week Tenant will be remunerated for basic services as provided in Exhibit A business activities Adrian Schiop did not stay long so Goodman then hired his younger brother, discriminatee Damian Schiop to replace Adrian Damian began his duties in August 1984 They included a variety of tasks throughout the common areas of the building including cleaning of the sixth floor tenant areas when Business Support Systems defaulted and picking up trash and debris left by Perman employees who were performing construction and remodeling work throughout the build ing Late in 1984 Gary Goodman hired Richard LeBrun to be the building manager , both for the Central Arts Building and three other properties which Goodman In vestment managed Goodman delegated considerable au thority to LeBrun because he was devoting much of his time to other business activities In January 1985 Damian convinced LeBrun to hire a part time janitor to work after 6 p in to perform various tasks on the sixth floor to clean bathrooms, and to clean the Goodman In vestment office which at that time was located on the fifth floor of the building 7 Damian recommended his sister in law Margaretta Jerkow to fill this job and she was hired She worked only two or three months and quit LeBrun then asked Damian to find a replacement and Damian recommended a friend, Constantine Stoin Stoin was hired but worked only a short while and quit for medical reasons At this time, Damian recommended his younger brother, Petru (or Peter) for the job Peter was hired on May 14 1985 Peter was a high school stu dent and worked about 15 hours a week starting at or about 6 p in each weekday evening and working until about 9 p m For the most part he was unsupervised in his activities 8 If he had any questions about what he should do he usually consulted Damian I credit Peter to the effect that there was nothing said to him during or after he was hired by any management official indicating that he was being hired on a temporary basis 9 On occa sion Damian s father and another friend of the family were employed by Perman in 1985 on a casual basis Goodman Investment and Perman moved their office from the fifth floor of the Graphic Arts Building to One ans Plaza in July 1985 For the next 2 months Gary Goodman was away much of the time so he asked Peretz who was supervising the construction work at the Graphic Arts Building to oversee Damian s activi ties Apparently Damian and Peretz did not get along too well and this friction led to union activities on Da mian s part On September 4 Damian and Peter held a short meet ing in the basement of the Graphic Arts Building Damian had two union designation cards with him at the r There is a Perman company record in evidence in the representation case (of which I take official notice) that notwithstanding the employ merit of an additional part time employee Damian worked 208 hours of overtime between January 1 and August 27 1985 a Perman company records introduced by the Employer in the repre sentation case indicated that between May 15 and August 27 1985 Peter worked more than 15 hours a week on 5 occasions 9 Damian and the other members of his family are immigrants from Romania and have been in this country for only a short period of time Damian and Peter speak in broken English Their lack of fluency in the English language complicated the presentation of evidence and the fact finding process in this case GOODMAN INVESTMENT CO time He signed one and gave the other to Peter who also signed the card and then returned it to Damian Damian turned the cards into the Union immediately, whereupon the representation petition at issue in this case was filed On September 10, Gary Goodman paged Damian from the Orleans Plaza Building and asked him to report to his office Goodman had just received in the mail a copy of the petition from the Board and spoke with Damian at some length about it He asked Damian if he had signed a petition to join the Union At first Damian said that he had not done so Damian then told Goodman that he had signed a small card Goodman then asked Damian if he had talked with anyone concerning the Union Damian replied that he had talked with one of the tenants Good man told Damian that he should never sign anything that he had not read because it could get him and others into trouble A few days later, after speaking with the Board agent who was assigned to the representation case, Goodman ascertained that both Damian and his brother had signed cards in the presence of Peretz He spoke with Damian again and accused Damian of not telling him the truth He showed Damian the papers he had received from the Board and accused Damian of causing him a problem, telling him to stop this kind of bullshit He reminded Damian that a lot of union members did not have jobs Peretz asked Damian if he had been aware when he took the job that it was a nonunion job Damian replied that he was aware of this fact Goodman asked Damian why he joined the Union and Damian replied More money and to protect his job Peretz then asserted, The Union doesn t pay you The Company pays you and suggest ed that the Company might even pay him more Both Damian and Peter attended the representation case hearings at the Board office and testified in that pro ceeding On October 8, Goodman and Damian had a third conversation in Goodman s Orleans Plaza office At this time Goodman reminded Damian that he did not need a union at the building On the following day the Regional Director issued a Decision and Direction of Election finding that there was in fact a two man unit of janitorial and maintenance employees at the Graphic Arts Building and directing that a representation election be held A few days later Respondents new building manager Robert Zacharias who professed ignorance of the fact that Peter was working nights at the Franklin Street location sent a letter to the Board office stating that Damian Schiop was the only person employed in this unit to On October 18 Zacharias called Damian into his office on the occasion when Damian had stopped by the Orleans Street Building to pick up his paycheck I credit Damian s statement that Zacharias (sometimes called Bob 10 Gary Goodman also professed ignorance of the fact that Peter Schiop was on his payroll until the time of the hearing He maintained this position until the General Counsel produced paychecks issued to Peter in July 1985 which were signed by Goodman A Perman company record introduced by Goodman in the representation case was a printout showing the payroll histories of both Damian and Peter in the first 8 months of 1985 Damian was designated in this record as Perman em ployee number 1801 and Peter was designated as Perman employee 1802 345 Zach) told Damian on this occasion that he was giving him a pay increase from $7 25 to $8 an hour He told Damian that he was a good worker and reminded Damian that he (Zacharias) could give Damian more money than the Union could 11 During this same period, the Respondents were pres suring Business Support Services and its subsidiary Hello Answering Service to begin to pick up their con tractual obligation to clean the office suites and common areas of the Franklin Street Building Zacharias and Goodman contacted Jenny Barszcz the owner of J B Maintenance J B Maintenance was doing the janitorial work at Orleans Plaza and Zacharias and Goodman asked Barszcz to contact Hello Answering Service and try to work out an arrangement in which J B Mainte nance, as a contractor of the answering service, would perform the after hours janitorial and maintenance work which Peter Schiop had been performing Barszcz did so and entered into a contract with that organization to per form 1 to 2 hours of janitorial and maintenance work each night at $22 per hour J B Maintenance undertook this contract at the end of October and continued to work for the answering service until it left the premises in February 1986, at the expiration of its contract with Goodman Hello Answering Service and its parent corn pany Business Support Services were no more attentive to their contractual obligations to J B Maintenance than they were to their commitments to Goodman To this date, J B Maintenance has never been paid for services rendered to the Hello Answering Service although the latter presumably started again to receive the $75 per month per unit rental offset which its contract with Goodman called for On October 25 Peter was informed by Zacharias that an independent cleaning service had been retained to perform his job at the Central Arts Building and that he was being transferred to Orleans Plaza Peter worked a week at Orleans Plaza and then resigned He testified credibly that he resigned because he did not like the work at Orleans Plaza There was no heat in portions of the building after hours and he was being required to work both inside and outside whereas his work at Cen tral Arts was inside work only He also testified that he would be glad to go back to work at his old job at the Central Arts Building if it was offered to him When Peter told the Respondents that he was leaving he was requested to sign a statement prepared by Zacharias that his reason for leaving was that his job conflicted with his school duties He signed the statement On November 13 2 days before the election Damian was asked to come to Goodman s office at Orleans Plaza When he arrived, Goodman asked Damian how he was going to vote in the election-yes or no Goodman also stated that after the election he would talk to Damian about the possibility of a transfer from the Central Arts Building to the Waveland Building another Goodman holding which had a janitorial position which carried with it a rent free apartment for the janitors use Good 11 I discredit Zacharias testimony that he told Damian he was giving him a pay raise on this occasion because he hoped it would improve Da mian s job performance 346 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD man also promised to improve Damian s existing health insurance plan, which had a $500 deductible provision, by reducing the annual deductible amount to $100 How ever, Goodman threatened Damian that if he voted for the Union he would eliminate the free parking slot in a gas station behind the Central Arts Building which had been assigned to Damian when the Respondents moved their offices in July On November 15 the election was held The tally of ballots showed a vote of 1 to 0 in favor of the Union Peter appeared to vote but his vote was challenged by the Board agent because his name did not appear on the Excelsior list which the Respondents had provided the Board Timely objections were filed by the Union and were made a part of this case On the following Monday or Tuesday, Zacharias spoke with Damian in his office He asked Damian if he had voted against the Union as he had promised to do Since the answer to the question was obvious, Zacharias went on to tell Damian that there would be problems with the Union without indicating exactly what those problems might be He told Damian that he could dis charge him simply by issuing three written reprimands and indicated that he would probably go about doing so 12 In mid December Barbara Tracey, Zacharias assist ant told Damian that Zacharias was canceling his park ing space at the gas station behind the loading dock of the Franklin Street Building Damian admits that he con tinued to park there, probably as a trespasser, but ulti mately had to find other accommodations for his car Damian complained to Zacharias about the loss of a parking space, but to no avail Zacharias told him that the change was part of an economy move On Sunday, December 22, Damian was paged at his home and was asked to report to the Franklin Street Building He arrived about mid afternoon A water pipe which was a part of the sprinkler system had broken and was spilling water into a rear stairwell Zacharias asked Damian to isolate the flow of water in the sprinkler system and to shut off the flow of water Damian was unable to do so but others who had been summoned stopped the water Damian was then requested to clean up the water which had spilled On the following day Zacharias and Goodman pre pared and delivered to Damian a one page written repri mand and asked him to sign it 13 The reprimand criti cized Damian for a whole host of job deficiencies It noted that a number of light bulbs on stairwells were burned out, that the water from the broken pipe had not been cleaned up and that there was debris in the stair well which caused a hazard It faulted Damian for failing to inspect the heaters during cold weather and suggested 12 In his testimony Zacharias referred to the memos he was threaten mg to write (and ultimately did write) as cover your ass memos He admits telling Damian that the Respondents would give Damian both oral and written warnings because they wanted to be able to document Damian s shortcomings Since Damian had never received any written warnings before Zacharias said he wanted to inaugurate this new prac tice following the election because he felt that unions require written warnings 18 The memo to Damian indicated that a copy was being sent to the Respondent s attorney that the malfunctioning of the heater caused the pipe to freeze thaw and then burst and that the fault lay ulti mately with Damian for failing to note that the circuit breaker for the heater had been removed In his testimo ny Zacharias suggested that the heater had in fact been sabotaged and stated that Damian was under suspicion of having sabotaged it However he stopped short of ac curing Damian of sabotage At first Damian refused to sign the document Later, he wrote on it This is not through [sic] and affixed his signature to it When he gave the reprimand back to Goodman and Zacharias Damian told them that what was written in the document was not true and that the break in the water pipe and the problem with the heater was not his fault He said that he was not an emergency relief man, was not supposed to touch any electrical equipment, and had been instructed not to touch it Goodman told Damian that it was his fault that the pipe had broken, but added that the reprimand was being given to him be cause Damian had joined the Union and had given the Respondents a hard time He suggested that it was still not too late for Damian to go to the Union and put an end to the problem by telling the Union that he did not need it any longer 14 On January 28 and 30, respec tively the Respondents issued two additional warnings to Damian One was for leaving work early and the other was for responding to special but unnamed re quests made by the tenants of the Central Arts Building without getting special permission to do so from Good man or Zacharias The General Counsel makes no con tention concerning the legality of these warnings II ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS A The Single Employer Status of the Respondents In the record of the representation case, Goodman agreed that Goodman Investment Company Inc and Perman Construction Company Inc were point employ ers of Petru (Peter) and Damian Schiop 15 On the basis of that record admission the Regional Director made a finding that Goodman and Perman were joint employers and that the Schiop brothers were their employees Re spondents take a different position in this case They claim that none of the four Respondent corporate entities are either joint or single employers and also maintain that the Schiops were not employees of Goodman In vestment or Perman but were employees of P I Part nership Inc, one of the four Respondents herein and the beneficial owner of the land trust which owns the Cen tral Arts Building Goodman Investment acts as property manager for P I Partnership The courts and the Board have repeatedly set forth the test for a single employer Radio Union v Broadcast Service of Mobile 380 U S 255 (1965) Blumenfeld Theo tres Circuit 240 NLRB 206 (1979), enfd 626 F 2d 865 14 According to Zacharias Damian said that he was going to the Union to inform it that he did not want its services any longer It is ap parent from the progress of this case that Damian did not abide by this statement if in fact he ever made it is Official notice of the representation case record is taken in this pro ceeding Gulf Building Corp 159 NLRB 1621 (1966) GOODMAN INVESTMENT CO (9th Cir 1980), Samuel Kosoff & Sons Inc 269 NLRB 424 (1984), Watt Electric Co 273 NLRB 655 (1984) There should exist an interrelation of operations, common management centralized control of labor rela tions, and common ownership Also relevant are such factors as the use of common office facilities common use of equipment and family connections between or among the various enterprises Not all of these factors must be found to establish the existence of a single em ployer situation, and no one factor is controlling Single employer status ultimately depends on all the circum stances of the case and is characterized by an absence of an arm s length relationship found among unintegrated companies Local 627 Operating Engineers v NLRB, 518 F 2d 1040 (D C Cir 1975) affd 432 U S 800 (1976) Regarding Goodman Investment and Perman, there is in the record, in addition to an admission that they both employed the Schiop brothers, a large number of other factors which establish their commonality of interest and operation Both have the same owner and the same press dent It is he who ultimately controls labor policies and all policies for both entities Perman is merely the con struction arm of Gary Goodman Its function is to reha bilitate or renovate buildings which Goodman s other arm Goodman Investment, manages Perman construc tion workers such as the one who cleaned the Central Arts Building during Damian s absence at the time of the hearing in this case, have been assigned to work for Goodman Investment on a temporary basis Damian cleaned up after Perman employees when they were working at the Central Arts Building and rendered many other services to Perman in the renovation of the build ing on North Franklin Street Perman s vice president Peretz was temporarily assigned by Gary Goodman to supervise Damian while Goodman was absent Goodman Investment and Perman maintain their offices together and have done so since the formation of Perman both in the Central Arts Building and now at Orleans Plaza They receive payroll and accounting services from the same division of the Goodman organization Damian and Peter were both paid as Perman employees and were named on a roster of Perman employees even though their day to day direction was provided by a building manager employed by Goodman Investment Co Inc 16 There is clearly an absence of an arm s length relation ship between these two companies Accordingly they are a single employer Since both Damian and Peter re ceived their checks from Perman were supervised by a Goodman Investment supervisor and performed services which enured to the benefit both of Goodman Invest ment and Perman they were and are employees of both of these organizations, as Gary Goodman originally stip ulated at the representation case hearing P I Partnership is the beneficial owner of the building in which the Schiop brothers worked Regardless of the 16 There is some disagreement in the record as to precisely who it is that employs Zacharias He testified that he is director of property man agement for Goodman Group Inc However Gary Goodman indicated in his testimony that Zacharias is on the payroll of Goodman Investment This disagreement in and of itself suggests that these corporate entities are used interchangeably and are little more than separate bookkeeping entries 347 financial transactions which take place within the frame work of the overall Goodman organization, it is P I Partnership which is entitled to the rental payments from tenants at the Central Arts Building because it is the ben eficial owner of the building Such payments are made by tenants by checks sent to a lock box controlled by it in the American Bank & Trust P I Partnership retained Goodman Investment to manage the building and through Goodman Investment has transferred funds both to it and to Perman for the rehabilitation or renova tion of the building P I Partnership is owned, in part, by Gary Goodman The rest of its ownership is in two other members of his family P I Partnership has other holdings besides the Central Arts Building, just as Good man Investment and Perman engage in business activities other than managing or renovating that building There is common management of the Central Arts Building, and the labor relations policies of that building are com monly exercised by Gary Goodman who owns and con trots the enterprises to whom P I Partnership has en trusted the management and control of its property There is partial ownership in common between P I Partnership and the other entities and a complete absence of arm s length relationship between these corporate shells Accordingly I conclude that the three of them are a single employer with respect to the bargaining unit here in question Goodman Group, Inc is an accounting entity which makes payments to or on behalf of Perman Goodman Investment and other enterprises which are a part of the Goodman family holdings Apparently some of the man agerial personnel for Perman Goodman Investment P I Partnership are actually on its payroll although they ex ercise authority throughout other facets of Goodman en terprises Accordingly it is part of the single integrated operation made up of the other three entities discussed above Accordingly, it is a single employer with them of the employees employed in the Central Arts Building unit at issue in this case B Compliance with the Board's Commerce Standards Although the Respondents made no such contention during the representation case they now contend that the Board may not assert jurisdiction over any of them because their respective annual business activities are in sufficient to meet the Board s jurisdictional standards The Board asserts jurisdiction over real estate manage ment companies which have an annual gross income of $100 000 or more and which have direct inflow or out flow across state lines in excess of $25 000 per year Mss tletoe Operating Co 122 NLRB 1534 (1959) The Board also asserts jurisdiction over non retail contractors which have direct or indirect outflow or inflow across state lines of at least $50 000 per year Siemons Mailing Service 122 NLRB 81 (1958) Better Electric Co 129 NLRB 1012 (1960) Where as here Respondents are separate companies but are integral parts of a single enterprise their dollar volumes may be combined for the purpose of showing liability under the Board s jurisdictional stand ards Orkin Exterminating Co, 115 NLRB 622 (1956) 348 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In 1985, P. I. Partnership derived annual revenues well in excess of $100,000 at the Central Arts Building and much more from other aspects of its business activities. Many of its tenants are large national retail concerns. In 1985, Perman paid in excess of $100,000 directly to sup- pliers of goods and services located outside the State of Illinois. In 1985, Goodman Investment derived revenues in excess of $100,000 from its activities and a manage- ment fee of $25,000. Combining all of these figures shows compliance with the Board's jurisdictional stand- ards under either of the above-cited standards. More- over, if one member of a single-employer group is indi- vidually subject to the Board's jurisdiction, it follows that the Board may assert jurisdiction over all of the other members of that group, even if, as individual em- ployers, one or more might fail to meet the Board's standards. Accordingly, I find that the Board has juris- diction over the four Respondents in this case. C. Unfair Labor Practices in a Single-Member Unit Even where the Board declines to run an election be- cause a bargaining unit consists of only one member, it does not follow that the employee in question is deprived of the protection of the Act. Early on, the Board deter- mined in Luckenbach Steamship Co., 2 NLRB 181 (1936), that it would not run elections in single-member units. In so holding, it made the following determination: The Act therefore does not empower the Board to certify where only one employee is involved . . . . This conclusion in no way limits the protection which the Act otherwise gives such an employee. [2 NLRB at 193.] Accordingly, the Respondents' contention that the unfair labor practices ascribed to its treatment of Damian Schiop because he is and was the only employee in a single-member unit must be dismissed, even if the factual predicate for such a contention could be sustained." D. The Existence Vel Non of a One-Man Bargaining Unit The Respondents' principal contention is that an elec- tion should not have been either directed or held among the janitorial and maintenance employees at the Central Arts Building because that unit is a one-man unit, and it is the established policy of the Board not to hold elec- tions or certify representatives as bargaining agents for one-man units. Luckenbach Steamship Co., supra. At the representation case hearings on September 20 and 24, Gary Goodman argued this point, stating that, even though the unit contained two members as of that date, it would soon be reduced to one member. Based upon that expectation, he urged a dismissal of the petition. At the time of the direction of the election, the unit still contained both of the Schiop brothers. On or about October 24, Peter was transferred to Orleans Plaza. He " Respondents belatedly asserted the claim that Damian is a supervi- sor and hence exempt from the protection of the Act. The contention is frivolous and conflicts with the Respondent 's other contention that Damian is employed in a one-man unit. resigned a week later. On November 15, the election was held. At that time, Damian was the only employee in the unit. Peter attempted to vote at that election, but on that date he was not an employee of the Respondents in any unit, so his vote was challenged. This set of facts gives rise to several legal questions re- lating to one-man units which the Board has addressed on other occasions. The fact that a unit has changed from two or more members to one member between the time of the petition and the time of the election-or even later-does not prevent the invocation of the one-man unit policy . Denver-Colorado Springs Pueblo Motor Way, 129 NLRB 1184 ( 1961). If the unit has in fact decreased during the processing of the petition , the existence of the single-member unit will prevent the holding of an elec- tion. A change taking place thereafter will prevent the certification of the bargaining representative or the issu- ance of a bargaining order based upon a previously valid certification . Crescendo Broadcasting, 217 NLRB 697 (1975); Virginia-Carolina Chemical Corp., 104 NLRB 69 (1953). However , in applying the one-man unit rule, it is the permanent size of the unit, not the number of actual incumbents employed at any given point in time, which is controlling . Mount St. Joseph 's for Girls, 229 NLRB 251 (1977). To defeat a bargaining order based upon a contention that a multimember unit has been reduced to a single-employee unit, the burden of proof is on an em- ployer to demonstrate that the reduction in size is a per- manent reduction , not merely a temporary happenstance occasioned by personnel shifts or employee turnover. Borden Co., 127 NLRB 304 (1960); Crispo Cake Cone Co., 190 NLRB 352 (1971), enfd . 464 F.2d 233 (8th Cir. 1972). These considerations govern the disposition of a single-employee unit question only where changes in the size of the unit are unsullied by the commission of unfair labor practices . If the unit has been reduced in size be- cause of discharges or transfers which amount to unfair labor practices, the Board will conduct an election , certi- fy the bargaining agent where appropriate , or issue a bar- gaining order as if the reduction had not taken place and the unit still contained more than one member. Grand Auto, Inc., 236 NLRB 877 (1968); The Kroger Co., 228 NLRB 149 (1977); Doug Neal Management Co., 226 NLRB 985 (1976). E. The Commission of Acts Which Constitute Violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and Objectionable Conduct Affecting the Outcome of an Election a. On September 10, Gary Goodman spoke with Damian in his office about the representation petition which Goodman had just received in the mail. When he asked Damian if he had signed a petition, Damian gave evasive and contradictory replies. Goodman also asked Damian if the latter had spoken with anyone concerning unionization. The reply given was a false one. Goodman then told Damian that he should never sign anything he had not read since such actions might get him and others into trouble. These questions, coupled with the sugges- tion that Damian might get himself into trouble, consti- GOODMAN INVESTMENT CO 349 tuted coercive interrogation and are a violation of Sec tion 8(a)(1) of the Act b A few days later, Goodman and Peretz went at it again with Damian in Goodman s office When Good man accused Damian of not telling him the truth about his involvement with the union the Respondents violat ed Section 8(a)(1) of the Act Goodman s directive to Damian to stop this kind of bullshit is a further viola tion of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act His reminder to Damian that a lot of union members did not have jobs constituted a threat of discharge which violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act Peretz inquiry to Damian on this oc casion as to why he had engaged in union activities was coercive interrogation which violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act Peretz suggestion that it was the Company who paid his wages and the Company might pay him even more is a promise of benefit for abstaining from union activities and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act c On October 18, the Respondents acting through Zacharias, gave Damian a 75 cent an hour pay increase On that occasion he told Damian that he could give him more money than the Union could This statement was a reiteration of what Peretz had said a few weeks earlier In light of Zacharias statement, the Respondents de fense-that it was giving Damian a raise as a result of a company policy of making yearly salary adjustments for its employees-is wholly without merit There is no reason to believe that the Respondents did in fact, have or follow such a policy No evidence was presented sub stantiating the naked assertion that such a policy existed Moreover the increase was given to Damian not on the anniversary of his hire but about 14 months thereafter Since the increase was given during the pendency of a representation petition and for admittedly antiunion rea sons it constituted a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act d Goodman s question to Damian 2 days before the election of how he was going to vote was coercive inter rogation and a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act His suggestion to Damian that he would talk to him after the election about a transfer to an apartment building which provided living quarters for a resident janitor con stituted a promise of benefit and a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act The same finding holds true for Goodman s promise to reduce the deductible feature of Damian s health insurance from $500 to $100 e Goodman s threat on the occasion of the above mentioned interview to discontinue Damian s parking privilege if he voted for the Union was a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act f The unfair labor practices recited above in subpara graphs a through e took place between the filing of a representation petition and the holding of a representa tion election As such they constitute objectionable con duct which warrants the setting aside of the November 15 election g Just before the election Goodman threatened to dis continue Damian s parking privilege in space which the Respondents rented at a gas station just behind the Cen tral Arts Building In mid December they stopped paying the rent on this space and told Damian that he could no longer park there The discontinuance of this parking privilege constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and is also a violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act h A few days after the election Zacharias asked Damian if he had voted against the Union as he had promised This reprimand, couched in the form of a question violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act By threat ening Damian that unspecified problems would arise be cause of Darman s vote and by suggesting that he could discharge Damian by issuing a series of reprimands the Respondents violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act i On December 23 the Respondents gave Damian the first written reprimand that he had ever received in 16 months as a company employee Damian challenged the truth of the allegations found in the document The effort to pin on him the responsibility for the break in the water line of the sprinkler system was farfetched, speculative, and unsubstantiated However, without get tang into the truth or falsity of the charges contained therein it is clear that the reprimand was intended prin cipally as a punishment for Damian s union activities which resulted in a vote for unionization of 1 to 0 As Damian was the only voter in that election his senti ments were clear for all to see Zacharias had previously threatened to issue written reprimands in order to lay a paper trail leading to Damian s discharge Respondents were also trying to soften him up by using the reprimand as a last ditch effort to thwart unionization telling Damian as they handed him the memo that it was still not too late for him to pull out of the Union By giving Damian a written reprimand on December 23 to dissuade him from supporting the Union and in reprisal for previ ous union activities the Respondents violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act Unlike the General Counsel I do not believe that the unlawful issuance of a warning letter unaccompanied by any overt discrimination in hire or tenure constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act I would dismiss so much of the consolidated com plaints which make this latter allegation F The Discriminatory Transfer of Peter Schiop Since January 1985 if not before there was sufficient work for at least 1 position in the janitorial and mainte nance unit at the Central Arts Building The slot for a part time evening employee was created long before Peter Schiop came to work in May Indeed two individ uals had held that position before he was hired During the summer of 1985 Peter worked overtime from time to time to perform the work which was assigned to him while Damian, the full time janitor worked overtime on a more or less regular basis When in July , some of Peters duties declined because he no longer cleaned Re spondents former office on the fifth floor Peter did other work during the evening hours which had the effect of lightening Darman s workload during the day Notwithstanding the office relocation which took place in July, there was no suggestion of eliminating Peter s position until a representation petition was filed 3 months later At that time the Respondents not only advanced the idea that its office relocation no longer justified the 350 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employment of a part-time evening janitor. It went about taking other steps seeking to reinforce this position.18 Because of the unsatisfactory nature of the perform- ance of Business Support Systems after the death or withdrawal of two of its partners, Respondents picked up the janitorial work which Business Support Systems was contractually obligated to do. Among these tasks was the cleaning of individual offices on the sixth floor. For this service the Respondents were entitled to receive rental payments from Business Support Systems over and above what they would have received had their contrac- tor performed its janitorial obligations. Respondents were in a position in which they had to perform these services for their tenants upon default by Business Sup- port Systems and, in fact, had been providing such serv- ices to their sixth-floor tenants for a matter of years. It was in large measure because this work was there to be done and because the Respondents were doing it with their own employees that they hired not only Peter but his predecessors. We are now asked to believe that it was for business reasons only that, in September and Oc- tober 1985, when the Business Support Systems contract was coming to an end and the Respondent was casting about for a replacement, Respondents decided that they would try to reimpose contractual janitorial responsibil- ities once again on a derelict contractor and revive a practice, long since abandoned, of giving it a $75 month- ly credit on its rent for each office cleaned. This was a credit on rental payments which were not always forth- coming in any amounts, with or without room cleaning credits. Once Peter was transferred to Orleans Plaza and sixth floor offices and other locations remained to be cleaned by someone other than an employee of the Respondents, it was the Respondents who foisted upon Business Sup- port Systems or its successor a cleaning contractor of Respondents' selection, a contractor who was in fact never paid by the secretarial service to whom it was rec- ommended. Now that the defaulting secretarial service has been replaced by Hall Answering Service (Hall) and Hall is taking care of these responsibilities, it is Damian Schiop who is actually performing these cleaning duties at night, not as an employee of the Respondents but as an employee of Hall. Accordingly, it is clear that evening janitorial work is still there to be done. It was by manipulating the bargaining unit and shifting the per- formance of this work that the Respondents were able to avoid performing it with their own employees. The animus exhibited by the Respondents toward unionization, and toward the Schiops for bringing about unionization was repeatedly demonstrated by acts and statements of their supervisors which are discussed above. The timing of Peter's transfer, taking place as it did between the issuance of the Decision and Direction of Election and the holding of the election, indicates clearly that the transfer was accomplished for the pur- pose of destroying the viability of the bargaining unit 18 Respondents seem to suggest that the end of renovation activities at the Central Arts Building has brought about a decrease in Damian's workload when, in fact, he now has additional daily responsibilities in the common areas of floors which were formerly undergoing reconstruction. and preventing the certification of the Union rather than for anything remotely connected to the exercise of busi- ness judgment. Accordingly, I conclude that, by transfer- ring Peter Schiop out of the Central Arts Building bar- gaining unit, the Respondents violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. Therefore, the challenge to Peter's ballot should be overruled, the ballot should be opened and counted, and the Regional Director should proceed with the processing of the representation case as he would in any multiemployee bargaining unit. Doug Neal Management Co., supra; Selecto Flash, Inc., 176 NLRB 170 (1969). On the foregoing findings of fact and on the entire record herein considered as a whole, I make the follow- ing CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondents Goodman Investment Company, Inc., Perman Construction Company, Inc., P. I. Partnership, and Goodman Group, Inc., are a single employer en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. Service Employees Local No. 1, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By transferring Peter Schiop out of the Central Arts Building bargaining unit for the purpose of reducing the unit to a one-man unit and prohibiting the certification of the Union, and by discontinuing parking benefits which had been given to Damian Schiop, the Respondents vio- lated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 4. By the acts and conduct set forth above in para- graph 3; by coercively interrogating employees concern- ing their union sympathies and activities; by promising employees raises, transfers, and other benefits if they reject unionization; by threatening to discontinue benefits if employees continue to support the Union; by granting a pay raise in order to dissuade an employee from sup- porting the Union; by threatening employees with repri- mands, discharge, and unspecified trouble if they support the Union; by instructing employees to stop engaging in union activities; and by threatening to issue reprimands and issuing reprimands in reprisal for union activities, the Respondents violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Such conduct committed between the filing of the representa- tion petition and the holding of the representation elec- tion constitutes objectionable conduct affecting the re- sults of the election conducted on November 15, 1985: 5. The unfair labor practices and objectionable con- duct set forth above in paragraphs 3 and 4 have a close, intimate, and adverse effect on the free flow of com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has committed cer- tain unfair labor practices, I will recommend that it be required to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative actions designed to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act. Having found a continuing dis- position on the part of the Respondents to violate the GOODMAN INVESTMENT CO 351 Act repeatedly and in serious ways, I will recommend to the Board a broad 8(a)(1) order designed to suppress any and all violations of that Section of the Act Hickmott Foods, 242 NLRB 1357 (1979) I will recommend that the Respondent be required to reinstate Peter Schiop to the position he held before he was transferred from the Central Arts Building bargaining unit The fact that Schiop resigned in the interim is irrelevant Grand Auto Inc, supra I will recommend that he be made whole for any loss of pay or benefits he may have suffered by reason of the discriminatory transfer, in accordance with the formula set forth in the Woolworth case,19 with inter 19 F W Woolworth Co 90 NLRB 289 (1950) est at the adjusted prime rate used by the Internal Reve nue Service for the computation of tax payments Olym pic Medical Corp, 250 NLRB 146 (1980), Isis Plumbing 138 NLRB 716 (1962) I will also recommend that park ing privileges, or the monetary equivalent, be reinstated to Damian Schiop and that he be compensated for any losses sustained by reason of the discontinuance of park ing privileges in December 1985 I will recommend that the reprimand of December 23, 1985, be removed from the personnel records of Damian Schiop, and that no future disciplinary action be taken against him based on that reprimand I will also recommend that the Respond ents post the usual notice, advising their employees of their rights and of the results in this case [Recommended Order omitted from publication ]