Ella Industries, Inc.

976 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Ella Industries, Inc. and Local One-Three, Fur, Leather and Machine Workers' Union, a/w United Food & Commercial Workers' Interna- tional Union and Local 97, International Broth- erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, Party in Interest. Cases 22-CA-15035, 22-CA-15039, 22-CA-15112-2, 22-CA-15162, 22-CA-15330, 22-CA-15341, 22-CA-15454, 22-CA-15455 July 11, 1989 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS CRACRAFT, HIGGINS, AND DEVANEY On December 23, 1988, Administrative Law Judge D. Barry Morris issued the attached deci- sion. The Respondent filed exceptions and a sup- porting brief. 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 brief and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,' and conclusions2 and to adopt the recommended Order. ' The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge 's credibility find- ings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings. 2 For the reasons stated by the judge , and as further demonstrated by the record, we find that the Respondent made employee Edgar Ordonez its agent for the purpose of communicating to employees its campaign in support of Teamsters Local 97 and against UFCW Local One-Three. Thus, as found by the judge, Ordonez' activities exceeded those of a mere neutral translator. He was an important and partisan conduit be- tween the Respondent's vice president, DiStasi, and Spanish-speaking em- ployees. Employees saw him receive from DiStasi and then distribute among the work force invitations to a Local 97 meeting scheduled for the next day Employee Tejeda testified that after Ordonez handed her the invitation he instructed her to come to work early the next day and ..we were going to go to the meeting and after the meeting was over we were going to eat, and we were going to be paid the time that we were there." This is the 8(a)(1) statement that Ordonez made. It does not seem appropriate to use it as a basis for the agency finding. However, Ordonez also told her that after the election DiStasi promised her a 50-cent raise. Employee Cordero testified that Ordonez questioned him at his locker re- garding his failure to return to work at the conclusion of the previous day's meeting with Local 97. When Cordero admitted having attended a Local I meeting, Ordonez left and returned shortly thereafter with DiS- tasi who explained, through Ordonez, that he would be fired if he refused to sign a statement accusing Local I of offering Cordero $1000 to cam- paign for it When Cordero refused to sign the statement, Ordonez in- formed him in DiStasi's presence that he was discharged. Under these circumstances, in which the Respondent has chosen Or- donez as its agent to communicate its preference for one union and its opposition to another, and placed him in a position identifying him with management so that the employees would reasonably understand that he spoke for management, the Respondent is liable for Ordonez' unlawful conduct See Ohmite Mfg, 290 NLRB 1036 (1988), Einhorn Enterprises, 279 NLRB 576 (1986) Moreover, we note that Ordonez made the unlaw- ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, Ella Indus- tries, Inc., Newark, New Jersey, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order. ful statement in the presence of DiStasi, who did not disavow or other- wise remedy the statement. Marta Figueroa, Esq., for the General Counsel. William Teltser, Esq. (Greenberg, Margolis, Ziegler, Schwartz, Dratch, Fishman, Franzblau & Falkin), of Roseland, New Jersey, for the Respondent. Eileen Willenborg, Esq., of New York, New York, Coun- sel for Local One-Three. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE D. BARRY MORRIS, Administrative Law Judge. This case was heard before me in Newark, New Jersey, on April 11-13 and May 2-4, 1988. On charges filed begin- ning May 13, 1987, a complaint was issued on August 28, 1987, amended on January 29, 1988, and further amended on April 11, 1988, alleging that Ella Industries, Inc. (Re- spondent) violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), (3), and (4) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). Respondent filed an answer denying the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices. The parties were given full opportunity to participate, produce evidence, examine and cross-examine witnesses, argue orally, and file briefs. A brief was filed by the General Counsel. On the entire record of the case, including my obser- vation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the fol- lowing FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION Respondent, a corporation with an office and place of business in Newark, New Jersey , is engaged in the proc- essing and dressing of furs. It annually purchases and re- ceives at its Newark facility goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of New Jersey. Respondent admits that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and I so find . In addition, it has been ad- mitted, and I find , that Local One-Three, Fur, Leather and Machine Workers' Union, a/w United Food & Com- mercial Workers' International Union (Local One) and Local 97, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO (Local 97) are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 295 NLRB No. 104 ELLA INDUSTRIES 977 11. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issues The issues are: 1. Was Mariano Lopez a supervisor, within the mean- ing of the Act, prior to April 1987? 2. Did Respondent interfere with its employees' Sec- tion 7 rights in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act? 3. Did Respondent render support to Local 97 and deny that support to Local One, in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act? 4. Did Respondent discharge Maria Maldonado, Can- dido Cordero and Maria Tejeda in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act? 5. Did Respondent discriminate against an employee for giving testimony under the Act, in violation of Sec- tion 8(a)(4) and (1) of the Act? B. The Facts 1. Background In 1985 Local One began organizing Respondent's em- ployees and on September 13, 1985, filed a petition in Case 22-RC-9510. During the processing of that petition Local 97 intervened on the basis of an alleged contract. The contract was subsequently held not to bar the proc- essing of the petition and an election was held on Janu- ary 31, 1986, in which both Local One and Local 97 were on the ballot. Since neither union had a majority, a runoff election was scheduled for May 15, 1987.1 The scheduled election was held in abeyance because of the charges in this proceeding which were filed beginning May 13. 2. Supervisory status It has been admitted that Loris Dinspechin, president, Anthony DiStasi, vice president, Steven Kahn, and Maria del Carmen are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. Respondent admits that Mariano Lopez and Robson Riberio were supervisors within the meaning of the Act beginning April 1987. General Counsel contends, however, that Lopez performed supervisory functions prior to that date. Cordero credibly2 testified that Lopez gave orders and assigned overtime as early as May 1986. Similarly, Mal- donado credibly testified that beginning June 1986 Lopez gave orders to clean the skins and assigned overtime. While DiStasi testified that it was first in April 1987 when Lopez' hourly wages were increased, thus indicat- ing that at that time he became a supervisor, I credit Cordero's and Maldonado's testimony that he was per- forming supervisory functions even prior to April 1987. The fact that his hourly wages may have first been raised in April 1987 does not in and of itself demonstrate that he was not performing supervisory functions prior to that time. Accordingly, I find that beginning June 1 All dates refer to 1987 unless otherwise specified. 2 Cordero, Maldonado, Maria Tejeda, and Romeo Teieda appeared to me to be generally credible witnesses. Rlbeno and Kahn, on the other hand, were evasive in many of their answers. 1986 Lopez was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. 3. Events of November 1986 Cordero was an active and open supporter of Local One. He credibly testified that he spoke to employees in the factory in support of Local One and some of these conversations took place in front of Lopez. Cordero tes- tified that in November 1986 he had a conversation with DiStasi in which he asked for time off to take a trip to his native land. Cordero credibly testified that DiStasi told him that "he was going to give me the vacation and a raise, but in exchange for that he wanted me to help him informing him anything I knew that Ramon Vargas and Jorge Cordova would tell me about the union, and I told him yes, it's all right." 4. Events of February 1987 Cordero credibly testified that in February 1987 Din- spechin called himself, Lopez, and Edgar Ordonez to his office and said that one of the employees who lived in New York was telling "everything that was happening at the factory" to Local One. Dinspechin said that if he found out who that person was "he was going to be fired from the factory." Maldonado was present during the conversation and she corroborated Cordero's testimony. 5. Maldonado discharge Cordero testified that several days prior to Maldona- do's discharge there was a conversation at lunch be- tween himself, Maldonado, Maria Tejeda, Mariano Lopez, and several others. A discussion took place con- cerning the upcoming elections at which time Maldon- ado said that she was going to vote for Local One. Cor- dero credibly testified that Lopez stated "whoever votes for Local 1 is going to fail because what we want here is Local 97." Maldonado corroborated this testimony. Mal- donado was discharged approximately 3 or 4 days after this conversation . Maldonado also testified that on March 5 she was supposed to start work at 4 p.m. but instead she arrived with Maria Tejeda at 4:35 p.m. After punching in, Steven Kahn came to her, handed her a check, and said "there was no more work." 6. May 1 conversation Cordero credibly testified that on May 1 Lopez came to Maria Tejeda, himself, and several others while they were working and said , "Do you know there's elections on the 25th?" Lopez continued, "whoever does not vote for Local 97 is going to be fired from the factory be- cause we don't want Local 1 . . . and if Local 1 wins we'll close the factory." 7. Meeting with Local 97 Cordero credibly testified that on May 12 DiStasi handed invitations to Edgar Ordonez, who then handed them out to the employees. The invitations were to attend a Local 97 meeting the following day. Cordero testified that Steven Kahn told the employees to report early on May 13. Cordero reported to work on May 13 978 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD at 11:30 a.m. and the employees drove to a restaurant for the meeting. Approximately 30 to 35 employees attended the meeting. A representative of Local 97 addressed the employees and Cordero testified that he and Maria Tejeda were the only employees who asked questions. Maria Tejeda credibly testified that on May 12 Edgar Ordonez handed her an invitation for the Local 97 meet- ing the following day. He told her that after the meeting was over "we were going to eat and we were going to be paid the time that we were there." She testified that both Ordonez and Kahn told her to come early the fol- lowing day. She testified that the meeting started at 12 noon on May 13 and employees from the first and second shifts were in attendance. Members of Local 97 addressed the employees and Tejeda testified that she and Cordero were the only employees who spoke at the meeting. Cordero asked about a raise and how Local 97 supported the workers. Tejeda mentioned that Local 97 had been the union that her husband belonged to and at one time he had a problem and the union was not able to resolve it. Tejeda testified that after the meeting DiStasi provided the employees with pizza which they ate at the factory. 8. Cordero discharge Cordero testified that on May 12 DiStasi called him to his office and told him that he wanted him to sign a statement that Local One offered him $1000 so that he would work "with Local One." A woman who served as a translator was also present. Cordero testified that he told DiStasi that he would not sign the statement. Later that evening DiStasi again called Cordero to his office and the woman was again present . Cordero testified "they wanted me to cooperate with them and sign the letter and I said, no, I can't sign that because it's not true." Cordero further testified that DiStasi was "pres- suring" him and said , "if you sign this you're going to have good benefits." Cordero testified , "I continued re- sisting, finally I told him, well, let's leave it till tomor- row, I'll think about it, because what I wanted to do was get out of there because of the pressure that he had on me." The following day the meeting with Local 97 took place and Cordero testified that after the meeting he did not return to work because he was "scared" to do so. Cordero returned to work at 12:30 p.m. on May 14. Cordero credibly testified that Edgar Ordonez ap- proached him in the locker room and the following con- versation ensued: Edgar told me as an interpreter that Anthony was saying that for me to continue working as an em- ployee in that factory I had to sign that letter that he had wanted me to sign . And I told him no, I was not going to sign that letter because I would not sign something that was not true . Anthony insisted that I had to sign it or else I would not have the job, and I said that I would not sign it. And when Edgar told him that I was resisting to signing it, then Anthony said, and that I understood in Eng- lish, no more work. That I understood, but just to be sure I asked Edgar what he was saying, and Edgar says, if you don't sign the letter, you don't have a job. He told that to Anthony and Anthony pulled out a yellow letter from the envelope and gave me the envelope with the check. Rosa Vasco, a relative of Steven Kahn, testified that she was the person who served as an interpreter in the conversation between DiStasi and Cordero . She testified that Cordero told her that someone from Local One of- fered him $1000 so he could represent Local One, and he accepted the money . She further testified that she and DiStasi prepared a written statement to that effect and that Cordero refused to sign it . Similarly, DiStasi testi- fied that Cordero had told him that he was offered $1000 to represent Local One. DiStasi asked Rosa Vasco to serve as an interpreter and prepare a statement to that effect. DiStasi then asked Cordero to sign the statement but Cordero refused. 9. Violation of Section 8(a)(4) The complaint alleges that Respondent discharged Maria Tejeda because she gave testimony under the Act, in violation of Section 8(a)(4). General Counsel's brief states that in June 1987 "Tejeda provided evidence in the NLRB investigation into the discharge of her sister, Mal- donado." DiStasi testified, however, that he was not aware of Tejeda's participation in the NLRB investiga- tion. The record contains no evidence that any supervi- sor or agent of Respondent was aware of such participa- tion. 10. Tejeda discharge Maria Tejeda credibly testified that 2 days after the meeting with Local 97 Robson Riberio called her and told her that she should be careful "because Anthony had been told that Condido Cordero and myself were the only ones who spoke at the meeting and that I had spoken badly about Local 97." Maria Tejeda became separated from her husband, Romeo, during the summer of 1987. Soon after the sepa- ration, Romeo applied for a job with Respondent, and he was hired. During October Romeo hit Maria at work and the police were called. Although two witnesses told Steven Kahn that it was Romeo who hit Maria, Kahn accused Maria of being the one who hit Romeo. On the day following the altercation Maria reported to work and nothing was said . On the following day, when she reported to work, Kahn told her that she was fired. She was not given a reason why . Romeo, on the other hand, was not discharged. Romeo Tejeda also testified . He appeared to be a cred- ible witness and the record indicates no reason why he would be biased in favor of Local One or any of the al- leged discriminatees. He credibly testified that when he applied for a job with Respondent he told DiStasi that he belonged to Local 97 and DiStasi told him that if he got a recommendation from Local 97 he would give him the job. He got such a recommendation and was offered the job the very same day. Romeo credibly testified that he had a conversation with Steven Kahn and Robson Riberio concerning his wife, at which time they told him that she was on the ELLA INDUSTRIES "hot list" or the "black list" because "she was campaign- ing for Local 1." Robson also told him that Cordero and Maldonado "had been fired from the job because they were campaigning for Local 1 ." Romeo further credibly testified that Robson told him that DiStasi was "willing to pay me so that Maria would be taken out of work." In addition, Romeo credibly testified that he told DiStasi: ... it wasn't necessary to fire my wife, that I had been working for some time with Local 97 at the company where I worked before and I was willing to give them my vote when the elections came up. In other words, to cover my wife's vote for Local I is that if she voted for Local 1, I would vote for Local 97 and then we would be in peace. With respect to the altercation between himself and his wife, Romeo credibly testified that Steven Kahn was present during the incident and Kahn told Romeo that "there was no problem with me" and that it was Maria "that was going to have a problem." Romeo further cre- dibly testified that a day after the fight , DiStasi and Kahn spoke to Romeo and asked if "I wanted them to fire her that same day." Romeo replied, "yes." Romeo returned to work several days later and he was not disci- plined nor did he receive any warnings concerning the altercation. C. Discussion and Conclusions 1. Violations of Section 8(a)(1) Respondent committed numerous violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In November 1986 DiStasi told Cor- der) that he would give him a vacation and a raise but that DiStasi wanted Cordero to inform him concerning Local One . This constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(1). In February 1987 Dinspechin told employees that if he found the employee who was passing information to Local One, he would be fired. This constitutes another violation of the Act. In addition, on May 1 Mariano Lopez told employees that "whoever does not vote for Local 97 is going to be fired because we don't want Local 1 . . . and if Local 1 wins we'll close the factory." This threat to close the factory was a further violation of Section 8(a)(1). With respect to the statement that DiStasi wanted Cordero to sign concerning Local One, Vasco and DiS- tasi testified that it was Cordero who initially said that someone from Local One offered him $1000 so that he would support Local One. Cordero denied that took place. It is not necessary for me to decide whether or not a payment was made to Cordero and whether Cor- dero initiated the discussion. What is important, howev- er, is that DiStasi required Cordero to sign a statement implicating Local One. Cordero refused to sign the state- ment and finally DiStasi told him there was no work available if he refused to sign the statement . Requiring Cordero to sign a statement detrimental to the union of his choice interfered with his Section 7 rights, in viola- tion of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Maria Tejeda credibly testified that just before the election Edgar Ordonez told the employees that they 979 should vote for Local 97. Ordonez was used as a transla- tor and as a conduit for purposes of communicating with Respondent's Spanish-speaking employees. Since he re- layed information for management to the employees and was placed by management in a strategic position where employees could reasonably believe he spoke in its behalf, I find that Ordonez is an agent of Respondent within the meaning of the Act . See B-P Custom Building Products, 251 NLRB 1337, 1338 (1980). Accordingly, I find that Ordonez' statement to the employees was a vio- lation of Section 8 (a)(1). Maria Tejeda also credibly testified that soon after Cordero was discharged Maria del Carmen asked her what her feelings were about Local One. I find that this constituted unlawful interrogation, in violation of Section 8(a)(1). In addition , when Romeo Tejeda applied for a job DiStasi told him that he would give him a job if he were recommended by Local 97. Romeo was recom- mended and was hired the same day. Conditioning the employment on the recommendation of Local 97 was a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 2. Wage increase The complaint alleges and Respondent admits that it promised its employees a wage increase after the election scheduled for May 15, and that in late May it granted the wage increase . Respondent did not present evidence to show that it had an established policy regarding the granting of wage increases . Respondent thus failed to satisfy its burden to justify both the fact and the timing of the increase . See Village Thrift Store, 272 NLRB 572 (1983); American Sunroof Corp., 248 NLRB 748 (1980), enfd. as modified 667 F.2d 20 (6th Cir. 1981). According- ly, I find that the promise and grant of the wage increase constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 3. Violation of Section 8(a)(2) Ordonez, as Respondent's agent, campaigned openly in the plant for Local 97. He distributed the announcements for the May 13 meeting which he received directly from DiStasi. The second-shift employees arrived early that day pursuant to instructions from Ordonez and Kahn. All the employees at work that day were required to attend the meeting . Although they were not paid for the time spent at the meeting, they were paid during the pizza party held immediately after and DiStasi paid for the pizza. While Respondent claims that the pizza party was actually a birthday celebration, the record shows that no one at the plant had a birthday on that day. Or- donez' testimony in this regard is not credible. While Or- donez testified that the party was held the day before his birthday because he does not work on his birthday, he subsequently testified that, in fact, he did work on his birthday. Furthermore, while he testified that Respond- ent customarily has birthday celebrations on company time, on cross-examination he admitted that this was the first time such a "birthday celebration " was held. When the president of Local One learned of the May 13 meeting he sent DiStasi a telegram demanding equal access. DiStasi admitted that a similar lunchtime meeting was never held between employees and Local One. Ac- 980 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD' cordingly, I find that Respondent violated Section 8(aX2) of the Act by sponsoring the May 13 meeting and by de- nying Local One equal access. 4. Discharge of Maldonado Several days before Maldonado was discharged she had a conversation with Mariano Lopez during which Maldonado said that she was going to vote for Local One. Lopez replied that "whoever votes for Local 1 is going to fail because what we want here is Local 97." Romeo Tejeda credibly testified that Robson Riberio told him that Maldonado was discharged because she was campaigning for Local One. DiStasi testified that Maldonado was terminated because of her "continued lateness and conduct, and a number of other things." Later in his testimony , DiStasi added "neglect of her job" as an additional reason for her termination. A docu- ment submitted by Respondent to the New Jersey De- partment of Labor, Division of Unemployment and Dis- ability Insurance, shows with respect to Maldonado that the only stated reason for the termination was "contin- ued lateness." The Board has long expressed the view that "when an employer vacillates in offering a rational and consistent account of its actions, an inference may be drawn that the real reason for its conduct is not among those asserted." Aluminum Technical Extrusions, 274 NLRB 1414, 1418 (1985); F. W.I.L. Lundy Bros. Restau- rant, 248 NLRB 415 , 428 (1980). Such an inference is warranted here. In addition, with respect to her lateness on the day of her discharge, both Maldonado and her sister were equally late. Maldonado was fired , however her sister was not. The record also shows that two other employ- ees, Esther DaSilva and Michael Robinson, were each late five times during a 5 -week period, yet neither of them was discharged. I find that Maldonado was dis- charged because of her support of Local One, in viola- tion of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Respondent's reasons for the discharge are pretextual . See Limestone Apparel Corp., 255 NLRB 722 (1981 ), enfd. 705 F.2d 799 (6th Cir. 1982). 5. Discharge of Cordero Cordero was a known supporter of Local One. DiStasi attempted to get Cordero to sign a statement which would have been detrimental to Local One. On May 14 DiStasi insisted that Cordero sign the statement or else he would be out of a job. When Cordero refused to sign the statement DiStasi told him there was "no more work." In addition, Romeo Tejeda credibly testified that Riberio, a supervisor, told him that Cordero had been fired because he was campaigning for Local One. While DiStasi testified that he did not discharge Cordero and instead that he was told by Edgar Ordonez that Cordero quit, I have credited the testimony of both Cordero and Romeo Tejeda and I find that Cordero was discharged because he refused to sign the statement detrimental to Local One. This constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 6. Discharge of Maria Tejeda Maria Tejeda and Cordero were the only two employ- ees who spoke at the Local 97 meeting. Two days after the meeting Riberio told her that she should be "careful" because DiStasi had been told that she and Cordero were the only ones who spoke at the meeting and that she "had spoken badly about Local 97." In October, after her husband, Romeo, hit her, even though there were witnesses that it was Romeo who hit Maria, Steven Kahn accused Maria of being the one who hit Romeo. Romeo credibly testified that Kahn and Riberio said that Maria was on the "hot list" or the "black list" because she was "campaigning for Local 1." He further credibly testified that Robson told him "they were willing to pay me so that Maria would be taken out of work." After Romeo hit Maria, Kahn said that there would be no problem with Romeo but it was Maria that was "going to have a problem." DiStasi and Kahn then spoke to Romeo and asked him whether he wanted them to fire Maria that same day and he replied , "Yes." DiStasi testi- fied that Maria was discharged for lateness , absent with- out calling, and physical fighting. I find these reasons to be clearly pretextual . See Limestone Apparel Corp ., supra, 255 NLRB 722. I find that Maria Tejeda was discharged because she supported Local One. This constitutes a vio- lation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 7. Other allegations The complaint alleges that Maria Tejeda was dis- charged because she gave testimony under the Act. Gen- eral Counsel's brief alleges that in June 1987 Tejeda "provided evidence in the NLRB investigation into the discharge of her sister." DiStasi denied having any knowledge that Maria Tejeda participated in the investi- gation and General Counsel has not shown that Re- spondent had knowledge of her participation in the in- vestigation. Accordingly, the allegation is dismissed. The amended complaint alleges that Respondent insti- tuted a written warning system in December 1986 and issued warnings to Maldonado and Maria Tejeda because of their support of Local One. I find the evidence insuffi- cient to support a finding that a written warning system was instituted in December 1986. In addition, I find that General Counsel has not shown that the warnings issued to Maldonado and Tejeda were issued because of their support of Local One. Accordingly, the allegations are dismissed. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. Local One and Local 97 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By interrogating employees, promising benefits, threatening to close the plant, promising and granting wage increases, and other acts interfering with employ- ees' Section 7 rights, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. ELLA INDUSTRIES 981 4. By assisting Local 97 and refusing to provide the same assistance to Local One, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act. 5. By discharging Condido Cordero, Maria Maldon- ado, and Maria Tejeda for supporting Local One, Re- spondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices constitute unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 7. Respondent did not violate the Act in any other manner alleged in the complaint. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, I find it necessary to order Respondent to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirma- tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Respondent having discharged Condido Cordero, Maria Maldonado, and Maria Tejeda in violation of the Act, I find it necessary to order Respondent to offer them full reinstatement to their former positions or, if such positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of earnings that they may have suffered from the time of their discharges to the date of Respondent's offers of re- instatement. Backpay shall be computed in accordance with the formula approved in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as computed in New Ho- rizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).3 On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed4 (a) Offer Condido Cordero, Maria Maldonado, and Maria Tejeda immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions or, if such positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of earnings, with interest, in the manner set forth in the remedy section above. (b) Remove from its files any references to the unlaw- ful discharges of Cordero, Maldonado, and Tejeda and notify them in writing that this has been done and that the discharges will not be used against them in any way. (c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay- roll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records nec- essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (d) Post at its facility in Newark, New Jersey, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."s Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 22, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Re- spondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond- ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that those allegations of the complaint as to which no violations have been found are dismissed. ORDER The Respondent, Ella Industries, Inc., Newark, New Jersey, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Interrogating employees about their union activi- ties, threatening employees with plant closure, or promis- ing and granting wage increases or other benefits in a manner interfering with employees' Section 7 rights. (b) Unlawfully assisting one union and refusing to pro- vide the same assistance to another union, in violation of the Act. (c) Discharging employees for activities protected by Section 7 of the Act. (d) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. 8 Under New Horizons, interest is computed at the "short-term Federal rate" for the underpayment of taxes as set out in the 1986 amendment to 26 U.S.C § 6621. 4 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur- poses. 5 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." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing in which all parties were afforded the opportunity to present evidence, it has been found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act in certain respects and we have been ordered to post this notice. WE WILL NOT interrogate employees, threaten em- ployees with plant closure, or promise and grant wage increases or other benefits in a manner interfering with the employees' Section 7 rights. WE WILL NOT assist one labor union and refuse to pro- vide the same assistance to another labor union, in a manner which violates the Act. WE WILL NOT discharge employees for activities pro- tected by Section 7 of the Act. 982 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL offer full and immediate reinstatement to Condido Cordero, Maria Maldonado, and Maria Tejeda to their former positions or, if such positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions , without preju- dice to their seniority or other rights and privileges and WE WILL make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of their discharges, with in- terest. WE WILL remove from our files any references to the discharges of Cordero, Maldonado, and Tejeda and notify them in writing that this has been done and that evidence of these unlawful discharges will not be used against them in any way. ELLA INDUSTRIES, INC.