Apex Linen Service Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 6, 2018

366 NLRB No. 12 (N.L.R.B. 2018)

366 NLRB No. 12
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
Apex Linen Service, Inc. and Culinary Workers Un-
ion Local 226 affiliated with Unite Here Interna-
tional Union. Case 28–CA–177062
February 6, 2018
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN KAPLAN AND MEMBERS PEARCE
AND EMANUEL
On August 1, 2017, Administrative Law Judge Gerald
M. Etchingham issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the
General Counsel filed an answering brief, and the Re-
spondent filed a reply brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated 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,1 and conclusions2

1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis-
trative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponder-
ance 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.
The Respondent has requested oral argument. The request is denied
as the record, exceptions, and briefs adequately present the issues and
the positions of the parties.
We correct two factual errors in the judge’s decision. First, in com-
paring discriminatee Hugo Chuc’s discharge to other discipline en-
forced by the Respondent, the judge erroneously stated that employee
Pablo Juarez had only received a written warning for damaging blan-
kets owned by the Cosmopolitan Hotel. The record indicates that Jua-
rez was later terminated, but only after damaging blankets a second
time. Second, in his Conclusions of Law, the judge stated that Chuc
filed two charges against the Respondent. The record indicates that
Chuc filed one charge. These errors do not affect our disposition of the
case. In addition, we do not rely on the judge’s decision to draw an
adverse inference against the Respondent for failing to call its former
supervisor, Diego Quintana, to testify at the hearing.
2 Having adopted the judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violat-
ed Sec. 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by warning, suspending, and dis-
charging employee Hugo Chuc, we find it unnecessary to pass on
whether the Respondent’s actions also violated Sec. 8(a)(4) and (1), as
this additional violation would not materially affect the remedy.
Contrary to his colleagues, Member Pearce would affirm the judge’s
conclusion that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(4) and (1) by warn-
ing, suspending, and discharging Chuc because he filed a charge with
the Board. Sec. 8(a)(4) applies a legal analysis wholly distinct from
Sec. 8(a)(3) and (1), and serves the separate, significant statutory pur-
pose of ensuring that employees are free from coercion when bringing
complaints to the Board. See, e.g., NLRB v. Scrivener, 405 U.S. 117,
121–125 (1972); NLRB v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding
Workers, 391 U.S. 418, 424, 427 (1968). Member Pearce believes that,
as the body charged with effectively implementing the purposes of the
and to adopt the recommended Order as modified and set
forth in full below.3
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Apex Linen Service, Inc., Las Vegas, Neva-
da, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Warning, suspending, discharging, or otherwise
discriminating against its employees for supporting the
Union or any other labor organization or for engaging in
other protected concerted activities.
(b) In any like or related 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 necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer
Hugo Chuc full reinstatement to his former job or, if that
job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent posi-
tion, without prejudice to his seniority or any other rights
or privileges previously enjoyed.
(b) Make Hugo Chuc whole for any loss of earnings
and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimina-
tion against him in the manner set forth in the remedy
section of the judge’s decision as amended in this deci-
sion.
(c) Compensate Hugo Chuc for the adverse tax conse-
quences, if any, of receiving a lump-sum backpay award,
and file with the Regional Director for Region 28, within
21 days of the date the amount of backpay is fixed, either
by agreement or Board order, a report allocating the
backpay award to the appropriate calendar year.
(d) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from its files any reference to the unlawful written warn-
ing, suspension, and discharge, and within 3 days there-
after, notify Hugo Chuc in writing that this has been
done and that the warning, suspension, and discharge
will not be used against him in any way.
(e) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for

Act, the Board should find an 8(a)(4) violation where the evidence
supporting it is clear. See generally Pergament United Sales, 296
NLRB 333, 335 (1989) (describing the “significant policies” underly-
ing Sec. 8(a)(4)), enfd. 920 F.2d 130 (2d Cir. 1990). As he finds such a
clear showing in this case, he would find the 8(a)(4) violation.
3 We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order to conform to
the Board’s standard remedial language and in accordance with our
decision in Excel Container, Inc., 325 NLRB 17 (1997). Further, in
accordance with our decision in AdvoServ of New Jersey, Inc., 363
NLRB No. 143 (2016), we shall modify the judge’s recommended tax
compensation and Social Security reporting remedy. We shall modify
the judge’s recommended Order to reflect this remedial change. We
shall also substitute a new notice to conform to the Order as modified.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, so-
cial security payment records, timecards, personnel rec-
ords and reports, and all other records, including an elec-
tronic copy of such records if stored in electronic form,
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under
the terms of this Order.
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Las Vegas, Nevada, copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix”4 in both English and Spanish.
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 28, after being signed by the Re-
spondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by
the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. In addition to
physical posting of paper notices, notices shall be dis-
tributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an
intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic means,
if the Respondent customarily communicates with its
employees by such means. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If the
Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facili-
ty involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall
duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the no-
tice to all current employees and former employees em-
ployed by the Respondent at any time since May 23,
2016.
(g) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 28 a sworn certifi-
cation of a responsible official on a form provided by the
Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has
taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. February 6, 2018
______________________________________
Marvin E. Kaplan, Chairman
______________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Member
______________________________________
William J. Emanuel, Member

4
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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 vio-
lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey
this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activ-
ities.
WE WILL NOT warn, suspend, discharge or otherwise
discriminate against any of you for supporting the Culi-
nary Workers Union Local 226 affiliated with Unite Here
International Union (the Union) or any other labor organ-
ization or for engaging in other protected concerted ac-
tivities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, offer Hugo Chuc 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.
WE WILL make Hugo Chuc whole for any loss of earn-
ings and other benefits resulting from his suspension and
discharge, less any net interim earnings, plus interest,
and WE WILL also make Chuc whole for his reasonable
search-for-work and interim employment expenses, plus
interest.
WE WILL compensate Hugo Chuc for the adverse tax
consequences, if any, of receiving a lump-sum backpay
award, and WE WILL file with the Regional Director for
Region 28, within 21 days of the date the amount of
backpay is fixed, either by agreement or Board order, a
report allocating the backpay award to the appropriate
calendar years.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, remove from our files any reference to the unlaw-
ful warning, suspension, and discharge of Hugo Chuc,
and WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify him in writ-
APEX LINEN SERVICE 3
ing that this has been done and that the warning, suspen-
sion and discharge will not be used against him in any
way.
APEX LINEN SERVICE, INC.
The Board’s decision can be found at
http://www.nlrb.gov/case/28–CA–177062 or by using the
QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the
decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Re-
lations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C.
20570, or by calling (202) 273–1940.
Nathan A. Higley, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Jennifer Braster and John N. Naylor, Esqs. (Maupin Naylor
Braster), for the Respondent.
Sarah Varela (McCracken, Stemerman & Holsberry), for the
Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GERALD M. ETCHINGHAM, Administrative Law Judge. On
June 3, 2016, 1 Culinary Workers Union Local 226 affiliated
with Unite Here International Union (the Union) filed an origi-
nal charge on behalf of employee Hugo Chuc (Chuc or Charg-
ing Party) in Case 28–CA–177062. On August 16, the charge
was amended. The General Counsel issued the complaint on
August 17 (complaint), and the Respondent Apex Linen Ser-
vice, Inc. (Respondent or Employer) answered the complaint on
August 31, generally denying the critical allegations of the
complaint.
This case involves the Respondent’s warning, suspension,
and ultimate discharge of the Charging Party in late May and
early June 2016 soon after the Charging Party joined and as-
sisted the Union and engaged in concerted activities, including
attending union demonstrations, his filing two charges with the
National Labor Relations Board (the Board) in early April 2016
in Case 28–CA–173178, and in early June 2016 in this case
before he was terminated to discourage employees from engag-
ing in these activities. The Respondent denies that these activi-
ties had anything to do with Chuc’s suspension or discharge
and that the suspension and discharge, while immediately close
in time to the protected concerted activities, were mere coinci-
dence. Respondent argues that because Chuc negligently, reck-
lessly, or intentionally damaged approximately 10 blankets in a

1 All dates in 2016 unless otherwise indicated.
test sample while Respondent was soliciting a new hotel linen
account, the Charging Party was slated by Respondent’s upper
management for discharge despite over 4 years of uninterrupted
employment at Respondent with no formal discipline directed
at the Charging Party.
This case was tried in Las Vegas, Nevada, on October 18,
2016. Closing briefs were submitted by the General Counsel
and the Respondent on November 22. On the entire record,2
including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel, the
Respondent, and the Charging Parties, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent, a Nevada corporation with an office and
place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada, has been operating a
commercial laundry service. The Respondent admits in part,
and I find, that in conducting its operations during the 12-
month period ending May 26, the Respondent derived gross
revenues in excess of $500,000 and purchased and received at
its Nevada facility goods and materials valued in excess of
$50,000 directly from points located outside the State of Neva-
da, and that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. (GC Exhs. 1(g)
2, 1(i) 2; R. Br. 4.)3 The parties stipulate and I further find
that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act. (Tr. 24; R. Br. 4.) The Union represents
workers in hotels and laundries in Las Vegas, Nevada.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Respondent’s Operations
Respondent commenced operations in 2011 and provides a
commercial laundry service to a number of Las Vegas casinos
and resorts and collects dirty laundry and cleans it at its facility
before returning it to its customers. Respondent’s facility was
comprised of just under 100,000 square feet and had approxi-
mately 240 workers in October. (Tr. 45–46, 55.) The Respond-
ent primarily cleans linens including sheets, pillow cases, tow-
els, washcloths, blankets and comforters. The facility also in-
cludes a food and beverage wash deck where specialty items
are washed. (Tr. 58.) Blankets are one such specialty item. (Tr.
33, 58.)
Respondent processes 150,000–200,000 pieces of laundry a
day, continuously 7 days a week. (Tr. 30, 34.) Respondent has
13 customers from major Las Vegas resorts/hotels with con-
tracts valued more than a million dollars and each resort/hotel
has the exact same types of linen products to clean every single

2 The transcript in this case is mostly accurate, but the errors have
been noted and corrected.
3 Abbreviations used in this decision are as follows: “Tr.” for tran-
script; “R. Exh.” for Respondent’s exhibit; “GC Exh.” for General
Counsel’s exhibit; “GC Br.” for the General Counsel’s closing brief,
and “R. Br.” for the Respondent’s closing brief. Although I have in-
cluded numerous citations to the record to highlight particular testimo-
ny or exhibits, my findings and conclusions are based not solely on the
evidence specifically cited, but rather on my review and consideration
of the entire record.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
day. (Tr. 46, 60.) Respondent has tunnel washers that are 75
feet long and 12 feet tall and contain the amount of 17 washers
and can process 10,000 pounds of linen per hour all day long.
(Tr. 56, 112.) In addition, Respondent runs two shifts for
cleaning linen, a day shift and a night shift. Id. Respondent also
uses pony washers to clean specialty items like blankets and
other less common linens.
The choices for various preprogrammed washer settings to
clean Respondent’s variety of linens include: 1. valet (for white
and light garments,) 2. valet (for dark garments), 3. Duvets-
colored blankets, 4. white tops and napkins/white spa, 5. color
tops, napkins/color spa, 6. Excalibur sheets, 7. white spa
sheet/Terry, 8. white pillow slips, 9. white sheets/robes/duvets,
10. white comforters/pillows, 11. color food service
shirts/pants, 12. color pool towels, 13. white aprons, 14. white
chef coats, 15. color aprons, 16. white bar towels, 17. color
utility rags, 18. white stain w/Oxalic, 19. color stain, 20. med.
Starch, 21. rinse and spin, and 22. white terry. (Tr. 59; R. Exh.
1E.)
The next step after the wash cycle is to unload the wash and
walk it to the dryer and do a very similar preprogrammed dryer
setting process where the dryer shows what the heat setting is
and the program it is set on for the linen. (Tr. 59.)
Glen “Marty” Martin (Martin) has been Respondent’s chief
executive officer and one of its founding owners since the
laundry facility began in 2011. (Tr. 26, 45.) Since 2011, Martin
admits that he has authority to hire and fire all employees at
Respondent and he is also responsible for all the operations of
every aspect of Respondent. Id.
Martin walks the linen plant floor multiple times throughout
the day. (Tr. 55.)
Mario Bran (Bran) is Respondent’s plant manager since ear-
ly 2014, and Bran supervises the Respondent’s shift managers
and plant supervisors and he sets employees’ schedules. (Tr.
85, 102.) Generally, Bran is in charge of scheduling, training,
hiring, and disciplining of Respondent’s employees and the
overall oversight of all work activity at the facility. Id. Bran
knows Chuc. Id.
Richard Silverstein (Silverstein) is Respondent’s service
manager. (Tr. 38, 124.) He reports only to Martin. (Tr. 40.)
Rosario Monzon (Monzon) is a shift manager who reports to
Bran and she supervised Diego Quintana (Quintana), the shift
supervisor, and Chuc as a washman in May 2016. (Tr. 81.)
Also in May 2016, Quintana was Chuc’s immediate supervi-
sor who reported to Monzon and Bran. (Tr. 29.) Quintana did
not testify at the hearing in this case. Chuc was hired by Re-
spondent in December 2011 and Martin considered Chuc a
“great” employee who rose up to the position of washman at
the time he was terminated in June 2016. (Tr. 65, 159.) Chuc
worked the night shift usually from 2:40 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. (Tr.
166–168.) Martin further opines that Chuc was promoted be-
cause Chuc had shown leadership and was of high quality and
conscientious at his work. (Tr. 65.)
Martin describes Chuc’s position as someone who works
alone on the wash deck so there’s really only one person there
that washes laundry and dries it. (Tr. 31–32.)
The Respondent’s Reclamation Department functions as a
final inspection or check on laundry. (Tr. 34.) Some stains or
tears are unacceptable to hotels so the Reclamation Department
pulls the unacceptable stained or ripped laundry when being fed
in Respondent’s equipment. (Tr. 34–35.) This is some laundry’s
last check to make sure they are stained or torn and, if so, Rec-
lamation bags them and sends them to a recycling company. Id.
Martin describes an earlier problem when a worker dialed in
a white stain washer formula which is a heavy bleach formula
that one “can smell the bleach” and the Respondent had ruined
colored blankets going around in the machine and “it messes
you up.” (Tr. 49.) Martin further explains that this raised “a
very similar issue” to the facts in the current case and Martin is
not describing a problem situation where a worker used the
improper dryer setting and damaged linen. Id.
Martin further explains that similar to the facts of this case,
he knows of a situation where employee Pablo Juarez used the
white stain formula when washing blue blankets for the Cos-
mopolitan Hotel account and this washer setting turned the blue
blankets orange. (Tr. 49–50.) Juarez was not terminated but
instead he received a written warning by Respondent. Id.
Martin also described the laundry business as being corrupt
and very competitive. (Tr. 46.) Martin described an incident
where a Respondent supervisor was caught on a hidden camera
using an engineers’ key to enter Martin’s office to photograph
Respondent’s contracts and steal cash. (Tr. 47.) Respondent
terminated the supervisor. Id.
Martin also described another incident in the summer of
2016 where some supervisors were unhappy with a new man-
ager and the related firing of the prior manager and the supervi-
sors asked employees to damage items in order to make the
new manager look bad. (Tr. 48–49, 68.) Respondent terminat-
ed the supervisors involved in this incident. (Tr. 49, 68.)
The Respondent’s standard policy for laundry that Respond-
ent causes the damages is to contact the owner of the laundry.
(Tr. 35.) Normal wear and tear is acceptable but if the Re-
spondent makes a mistake and damages a load, the standard
policy is to contact the owner and let them know so they can
properly run their business knowing they will be have that
many fewer items available. Id. Martin makes these calls and
says he rarely, or on average, once per month has to do it. (Tr.
35–36.) Later Martin revises his opinion and says that a mis-
take or malicious-type damage occurs 3–4 times per year above
normal wear and tear. (Tr. 73.)
B. Respondent’s Growing Animus Against the Union
2015–2016
Martin first became aware that the Union was involved with
some of the Respondent’s employees in April 2015, by way of
an April 28, 2015 letter sent by the Union to Martin and Bran
informing Respondent through Martin and Bran that the Union
was interested in organizing at Respondent. (Tr. 36–37, 56–57;
R. Exh. 2.) The letter further informs Martin that: “[s]tatistical
studies of the NLRB representation process show an unfortu-
nate pattern of illegal retaliation against workers who try to
organize through that process.” (Tr. 67; R. Exh. 2.) The letter
also lists the name and classification of 14 Respondent employ-
ees who are represented of having formed a committee in sup-
APEX LINEN SERVICE 5
port of organizing for union representation.4 Chuc is not named
as one of the 14 employees.
After receiving the April 2015 union letter, Martin noticed
that some 4 or 5 Respondent employees were wearing union
buttons at Respondent. (Tr. 36–37, 66; R Exh. 2.)
Also in April 2015, the Union conducted some of its activi-
ties at Respondent’s facility. (Tr. 54.) On at least 2 occasions,
union representatives came to Respondent’s parking lot at night
and handed out flyers and Martin discovered this due to em-
ployee reports. (Tr. 56, 74.) Martin admits that he is also aware
that union representatives were visiting employees’ homes
around this same time. (Tr. 71.) Martin complained that these
early union activities distracted employees. (Tr. 71.)
Chuc first became a committee leader for the Union in Octo-
ber 2015 and he wore a union button every day to signify his
position as union committee leader. (Tr. 160–161.) Martin and
Bran also noticed that Chuc also wore a union button at Re-
spondent. (Tr. 42, 66, 98.)
In addition to these union activities, the Union picketed at
Respondent’s clients’ properties in 2016. (Tr. 36.) On March
17, Chuc took part in a union demonstration and picketing at
one of the hotels that Respondent had a current laundry con-
tract—the Tropicana. (Tr. 37–38, 66, 74.) Martin was aware of
the union picketing at the Tropicana. Id. Silverstein was there at
the Tropicana union picketing and he took photographs of the
demonstration and he shared them with Martin. (Tr. 51, 140.)
Bran also was aware that the union was protesting on some
client properties. (Tr. 99.)
Martin opined that a safety issue had arisen at the hotel and
so Respondent’s Research Service Manager Silverstein went to
the hotel to see if there were any safety issues or problems with
Respondent’s employees dropping off and/or or retrieving the
usual laundry from its customer the Tropicana. (Tr. 38.)
On March 31, Chuc took part again in a union march in sup-
port of unionization and picketing at the Treasure Island Hotel
in Las Vegas with other union committee members who were
employees at Respondent as well as three of his sons. (Tr. 162,
171–172.) Respondent also had a laundry contract with the
Treasure Island Hotel on March 31. (Tr. 37–38, 40, 44, 51–52,
66, 74, 134, 161–163; GC Exhs. 6(a)–(g).) By April 1, Martin
was also aware that Chuc took part in this union march and
picketing.5 Id. Bran also was aware that the union was protest-
ing on some client properties. (Tr. 99.) Martin admitted that
Chuc’s presence at the March 31 Treasure Island demonstration
was additional evidence that Chuc supported the Union. (Tr.
66.)
Martin opined that a safety issue had arisen at the hotel on
March 31 and so Silverstein went to the hotel to see if there

4 Of the employees listed as union organizing committee members,
at least four of them, or more than 25 percent, had been terminated by
Respondent by the time of hearing. Tr. 75–77.
5 The Respondent was not allowed to subpoena the Union’s picket-
ing activities on March 17 and 31 as I find that these activities are not
relevant to this case except I accepted a stipulation from the parties that
these activities took place on March 17 and 31 and Chuc participated in
the picketing for the Union and Respondent was aware of Chuc’s Un-
ion activities on these dates. Tr. 37–38; October 14, 2016 Order Ad-
dressing Pending Petitions to Revoke Subpoenas.
were any safety issues or problems with Respondent’s employ-
ees dropping off and/or or retrieving the usual laundry from its
customer the Treasure Island but Silverstein had no concerns
about the union demonstration but decided to hang on to ob-
serve and take photographs. (Tr. 38–40, 44, 52–53, 68–69, 99,
125–131, 146; GC Exhs. 6(a)–(g).) Silverstein took photos
from the Treasure Island with his camera phone and shared
them with Martin and Bran which showed Chuc participating in
union picketing at the hotel with placards saying that it is unfair
that Respondent does not have a contract with the Union.
Silverstein’s photos and videos from the Treasure Island Ho-
tel only show union picketing at a location out of the way and
not a safety issue. The photos and videos show Respondent’s
employees who participated in the demonstration and carried
placards with Respondent’s name on them. (GC Exh. 6(a)–(g);
GC Exh. 7.) I find that the photos also show that Chuc is not in
any position that blocked the loading dock or created any safety
concern but he marched and picketed on a sidewalk nearby that
did not block Respondent’s laundry trucks.6
Martin admits that before the end of May, he knew that Chuc
was involved with the Union not only because he saw Chuc
picket at the Treasure Island for the Union against the Re-
spondent on March 31 but also because Martin had seen Chuc
wear a union button almost daily. (Tr. 42, 66–67.)
C. The Original Charge and Complaint
On April 4, Chuc filed an original charge against the Re-
spondent in what later became NLRB Case 28–CA–173178
(Case 28–CA–173178) and also later settled. (Tr. 10.) The
charge alleged that Respondent interfered with Chuc’s rights
under Section 7 of the Act, alleged that Respondent engaged in
surveillance of employees’ union activities including photo-
graphing and recording video of employees’ marches in support
of unionization, alleged that Respondent told employees to take
off union buttons, and that Respondent told employees that it
would be futile for employees to support the union. (GC Exh.
2(e).) Martin also knew before he terminated Chuc that Chuc
had filed a charge against the Respondent with the NLRB that
later settled as Martin received a draft settlement agreement
from the Board in Case 28–CA–173178 sometime in late May
or early June before Chuc was terminated that contained Chuc’s
name in the signatory block as the settling party before Martin
and Chuc signed it after Chuc was terminated. (Tr. 67; GC Exh.
2.)
D. The Hilton RFP in Last Part of May 2016
By May 22, according to Martin, Respondent was in the fifth
or sixth day in the request for pricing (RFP) process with Hilton
Grand Vacations (Hilton) to the point that pricing in the con-
tract between Respondent and Hilton had been approved as
acceptable and Hilton was in the final selection process with
the Respondent for a laundry contract that Martin estimates to
be worth $2.5 million/year to Respondent. (Tr. 32–33, 62.)

6 Silverstein also made two videos from the Treasure Island union
picketing that I find were recorded accidentally and provide nothing
more than the photos themselves. Together I find that they evidence
Respondent’s surveillance of Chuc’s union activities. Tr. 129, 131–133,
138.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
Martin further explained that the normal practice is for the
tested laundry facility to wash and dry 5 to 10 hampers full of a
few days’ worth of sample laundry loads mostly of sheets,
washcloths, hand and bath towels, and an occasional blanket or
comforter to be washed over a week’s period. Id. The hotel
usually provides these sample loads to test the Respondent’s
laundry quality and to make sure nothing is strange, there is no
low quality, and that the laundry service’s standards are ac-
ceptable to Hilton. Id. Martin opined that what makes the blan-
kets so special is that you usually only get four or five of them
in a hamper so if there is damage to a sheet or some non-special
item, it could go unnoticed, but with blankets it really sticks out
and can’t go unnoticed. Id.
This entire RFP process between Respondent and Hilton was
known to everyone working at Respondent at this time. (Tr. 33,
61–62.) Respondent selected its best people, including Chuc, to
handle the RFP process and the sample load of laundry. Id.
Martin claims that Respondent’s best people were selected
because it was so important to Respondent and he further
claims he explained to all employees what the situation was. Id.
E. The May 22 Chuc Incident
Martin admits that on May 22, Respondent “wanted to stain
wash them too [the 2 loads of colored blankets that get burned]
as a special process for these, so Diego [Supervisor Quintana]
specifically met with him [Chuc] and said, this is what we want
to do for this account so that they look great, because it’s a
brand new account.” (Tr. 62.) Chuc also admits that he knew
the 10 colored blankets belonged to Hilton as a possible new
account for Respondent. (Tr. 180–181.) Chuc adds that receiv-
ing specific orders from Supervisor Quintana was highly unu-
sual and had never happened before Quintana ordered Chuc to
use specific double stain wash cycle settings on May 22.
On May 22, Chuc confirmed that he received special instruc-
tions from Supervisor Quintana to use a two-stain wash cycle to
wash the 10 Hilton blankets in the Setting No. 19 “colored
stain” wash setting twice which, as mentioned above, is a
stronger wash setting using bleach than the usual “colored
blanket” wash setting No. 3 that Chuc normally would have
used and a setting that Respondent had not yet used with Hil-
ton’s blankets prior to May 22. (Tr. 62, 106, 114, 119–120,
164.) These 10 blankets were damaged from the double col-
ored stain wash setting and not by any specific dryer setting
which chemically burned the 10 colored blankets and damaged
them. (Tr. 114, 164.) This 10 damaged blankets incident is
known hereafter as the May 22 Chuc incident.
After washing the 10 colored blankets as instructed by Su-
pervisor Quintana, Chuc noticed that the blankets were wearing
out. (Tr. 165.) Noticing this, Chuc used a dryer program that
used less heat than Chuc would normally use to dry colored
blankets. Id. After the dryer cycle finished, Chuc noted further
damage to the colored blankets seeing a string of loose fabric
which indicated to Chuc that the 10 colored blankets were a
little bit more damaged in the dryer cycle than he had noted
earlier with them coming out of a double “color stain” wash
cycle. (Tr. 165–166.)
Chuc admits that he damaged laundry as part of the May 22
Chuc incident. (Tr. 163–164.) Chuc further opines, however,
that the 10 colored blankets were damaged because they were
washed twice on the colored stain wash cycle that Supervisor
Quintana ordered Chuc to use. Id. Chuc even warned Supervi-
sor Quintana beforehand “that the materials [10 colored blan-
kets] can be damaged through the wash” by using a two-stain
wash instruction. (Tr. 164.) Chuc opined that the color stain
wash formula “is more stronger [sic] than we had in the com-
pany [at Respondent].”7 (Tr. 164.) Notably, Supervisor Quin-
tana responded to Chuc’s warning saying to him that this is an
order and you have to follow it “because it’s coming from up-
stairs.” (Tr. 165, 183.)
Chuc received no special instructions as to how to dry the
two loads of 10 colored blankets. (Tr. 164.) Chuc knows how
to operate Respondent’s washers and dryers and on May 22
they were not malfunctioning because the machines provide
some warning messages information when they are not working
properly. Id. Chuc points out once again that Supervisor Quin-
tana’s special orders to Chuc on May 22 was the only time that
Supervisor Quintana gave Chuc orders as to what wash cycles
to use when washing linens. (Tr. 183.) As stated above, Chuc
also recalled that on May 22, the specific wash cycle order that
Supervisor Quintana gave to Chuc came from “upstairs” or
Respondent’s upper management. (Tr. 183.)
After Chuc took the 10 damaged colored blankets out of the
dryer, he took the blankets to Shift Manager Monzon who im-
mediately responded to Chuc pointing out to him that the blan-
kets had been burned. (Tr. 166.) Chuc responded to Monzon
saying: “yes, I know.” Id.
Next, Supervisor Quintana speaks up to Chuc and tells Chuc
that Chuc is the one that burned the 10 blankets. (Tr. 166.)
Chuc responded to Supervisor Quintana pointing out to him
that the 10 blankets got burned because Supervisor Quintana
ordered Chuc to wash the 10 colored blankets on the new dou-
ble stain wash settings that had never been used on Hilton col-
ored blankets before. (Tr. 62, 106, 114, 119–120, 164, 166.)
Bran admits that he knows what occurred on May 22 only by
what he was told by Supervisor Quintana. (Tr. 116.) Bran knew
of the damage to the blankets on the night it occurred. (Tr. 91–
92.) Bran admits that this May 22 Chuc incident is the first and
only time that Chuc had damaged customer goods. (Tr. 111.)
Monzon saw the damaged blankets on May 22 when Chuc
brought them to Supervisor Quintana. (Tr. 82–83.) Monzon
saw that the burned blankets were at the top of the load that
Chuc delivered to Quintana which also explains why Monzon
knew they were damaged. Id. Monzon, however, further ex-
plains that she did not report the damaged blankets to Bran or
anyone else above her at Respondent because Chuc was work-
ing under Quintana’s supervision at the time the blankets were
damaged. (Tr. 83, 166.)
Chuc did not hide the damaged blankets from Respondent’s

7 Chuc’s primary language is Spanish and he used Bran as an inter-
preter at hearing. I understand Chuc’s “more stronger” statement to
mean that Respondent’s colored stain wash formula (No. 19) was one
of the strongest formulas for getting out stains second only to the white
stain wash formula containing Oxalic (No. 18). The instruction to Chuc
to use the stronger colored stain wash formula “twice” by Supervisor
Quintana subjected the 10 colored blankets to a strong stain wash two
times as part of the May 22 Chuc incident.
APEX LINEN SERVICE 7
management—they were on top of the load he delivered to
Supervisor Quintana and both shift Manager Monzon and Su-
pervisor Quintana had an open view and were fully aware of
the damaged blankets from Chuc on May 22. (Tr. 82–83, 120–
121.) The damaged blankets occurred late in the night on
Chuc’s night shift and Supervisor Quintana delivered the dam-
aged blankets directly to Bran’s office. In addition, soon after
delivering the damaged blankets to Bran’s office, Supervisor
Quintana brought the damaged blankets to Bran’s attention by
text or email at the end of the night shift at 1:30 a.m. on May
23. (Tr. 69–70, 85–86, 96, 100.) Supervisor Quintana reported
to Bran that Chuc delivered to Quintana the damaged blankets
at the end of his shift and that the washer at that time and not
the dryer had caused damage to the blankets.8 (Tr. 87, 91–92,
100.)
F. Martin and Bran Falsely Accuse Chuc of Hiding the May 22
Chuc Incident the Morning of May 23
Martin also became aware of the May 22 Chuc incident in
the morning after the incident occurred on May 23 at 8 a.m.
when he met with Bran in Bran’s office where the damaged
blankets were located. (Tr. 28–29, 63, 69–70.) Martin described
the May 22 Chuc incident to include the damaged blankets
being tucked away and a surprise that Martin and others found
that morning at 8 a.m. (Tr. 29.) Martin discussed the damaged
blankets and Martin professes that Bran told him that Bran did
not know how the damaged Hilton colored blankets occurred.
(Tr. 63.)
In response to this, Martin next instructs Bran that “we need
to figure it out [how the blankets got damaged].” (Tr. 63.) Mar-
tin next asks Bran who was the operator and Bran tells him it
was Chuc. Martin next views the two damaged loads of 10
colored blankets and it is at this time that Martin explains “we
[Martin and Bran] decided to suspend him [Chuc].” Id. Next,
Martin changes this explanation to: “I [Martin] decided to sus-
pend him [Chuc].”9

8 I reject Bran’s testimony that he immediately opined that the 10
colored blankets were “burned on the dry cycling” because the written
warning discipline issued by Bran at approximately 2:50 p.m. on May
23 only references “damaged” laundry and not burned laundry. GC
Exh. 3. Also, I further find that Chuc was a more believable witness
and Martin’s testimony confirming that Respondent intended to use the
stronger stain wash cycle on Hilton’s colored blankets for the first time
on May 22 is consistent with Chuc’s testimony that the double bleached
wash cycle damaged the colored blankets rather than a hot dryer cycle.
9 Bran contradicts Martin and testified under oath at hearing that he
(Bran) made the decision to suspend Chuc based on the newly discov-
ered information he got together for the blankets during the day on May
23. Tr. 91. Bran says despite having the damaged blankets in front of
him early on May 23 as delivered by Quintana to his office late on May
22, Bran somehow learned more about the quantity of damaged blan-
kets from the time of the written warning at 2:50 p.m. until later in the
day when Chuc was suspended. Bran claims he went through the dam-
age to the 10 blankets and found out how many pieces were damaged
and discovering this increased damage later in the day led to Chuc’s
suspension. Tr. 91–92; GC Exh. 4. Again I reject Bran’s statements
here as Martin was the more reliable witness on the subject of who
suspended Chuc even though both the suspension form and the written
warning were signed by Bran and both are signed by Chuc. GC Exhs. 3
& 4. More importantly, I reject Bran’s explanation as to why Chuc was
Martin viewed the damaged blankets very briefly and was al-
so notified by Chuc’s supervisors that Chuc had received very
specific instructions from his supervisor to follow—specific
wash cycle and specific dryer cycle to clean Hilton’s colored
blankets, and the supervisors had to figure out how the colored
blankets were damaged the night before. (Tr. 57.)
G. Chuc Receives a Written Warning for the May 22
Chuc Incident
Before returning to the work floor to begin his shift on May
23, Chuc went to the HR department at Respondent and met
with Juanna Juanita (Juanita), the secretary of the office. (Tr.
167.) Chuc asked Juanita if he could make a report about the
May 22 Chuc incident, Juanita recorded it, and told Chuc that
she would give the report to Martin. Id.
Chuc returned to work on May 23 at 2:40 p.m. when his shift
begins and Bran pulls Chuc into his office 10 minutes into his
shift and talks to Chuc about the May 22 Chuc incident. (Tr.
87–88, 168.) Monzon is also present. (Tr. 94.) Bran believes
that because of the damaged blankets, he needed to meet with
Chuc, counsel him, and “put something in writing.” (Tr. 92.)
Bran next issues Chuc a written warning based entirely on
the information provided him the night before by Supervisor
Quintana for causing a potential claim or loss of the account
due to the damage to Hilton Grand Vacations’ blankets.10 (Tr.
30, 85–86, 88–89, 91; 1(g) 3; 1(i) 3; GC Exh. 3.) Bran explains
that he gave Chuc a written warning because “we need to fol-
low the procedure on the disciplinary actions and when they
[employees] damage something I [Bran] have to make sure we
put that on record.” (Tr. 89.) The written warning says: “Yes-
terday, a lot of the items from one of our accounts were dam-
age[d][sic], this could cause a potential claim or loss of the
account.” (GC Exh. 3.) Bran advises that “as a washer [Chuc]
has [to] be more careful and avoid these problem[s].” Id. Bran
also warns Chuc under the “Consequences Should Incident
Occur Again” section of the written warning that if Chuc caus-
es more linen damage in the future “it may result in further
disciplinary action.” Id. Bran did not interview Chuc about the
incident at any time or follow-up with Chuc after talking with

suspended later on May 23 as being untrue as the same damaged blan-
kets were delivered to Bran and directly in front of him when he issued
the written warning to Chuc at approximately 2:50 p.m. on May 23 so I
reject his testimony that later on May 23 Bran somehow discovered
exactly the 10 damaged blankets when the same were directly in front
of him at the top of the load dropped off by Quintana. Tr. 95. Later
Bran changes his testimony again to say that he decided to suspend
Chuc so he could get answers to the questions of whether Chuc dam-
aged the 10 blankets on purpose or if there was something wrong with
Respondent’s equipment. Tr. 92. I further reject this explanation for
Chuc’s suspension as being inconsistent to what is mentioned in the
written suspension and Martin’s testimony that he suspended Chuc on
May 23.
10 Somehow, Martin denies that Chuc received a written warning
from Bran for the May 22 Chuc incident and Martin insists that Chuc
was only suspended and terminated for the same May 22 Chuc incident.
Tr. 74–75. I reject this testimony as in direct conflict with Chuc’s and
Bran’s testimony and GC Exh. 3—Respondent’s written warning to
Chuc for the May 22 Chuc incident signed by Chuc and Bran on May
22, 2016 after they met in Bran’s office at 2:50 p.m.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD8
Supervisor Quintana about the incident. (Tr. 101.)
Chuc responds to the written warning by writing that he is
not in agreement with this warning because Chuc said the error
that caused the damage to 10 blankets came from Supervisor
Quintana who ordered Chuc to wash the 10 blankets twice on a
stain wash cycle that caused the damage to the blankets. (Tr.
93, 168; GC Exh. 3.) Stated differently, Bran understood
Chuc’s comment to mean that Chuc did not think he deserved
the warning because the orders how to wash the 10 blankets
that were damaged in the wash were made by Supervisor Quin-
tana and not Chuc. (Tr. 93, 168; GC Exh. 3.)
Chuc asked Bran if he could continue working his shift after
receiving the written warning and Bran responded that yes,
Chuc could continue working his shift. (Tr. 168.) Bran did not
suspend Chuc at this time. (Tr. 89.) Chuc returned to the work
floor and worked after receiving the written warning from
Bran. (Tr. 89.)
H. Chuc Receives a Written Suspension for the Same May 22
Chuc Incident
Approximately 10 hours later on May 23 at the end of
Chuc’s shift, Respondent also suspended Chuc. (Tr. 63, 89–91;
GC Exh. 4.) The form makes the same reference as the written
warning to Chuc having caused damage to a load of an account
and damaged items. The written suspension also adds that it is
based on more information and damaged items and that Chuc
was now being suspended. (GC Exh. 4.) Chuc recalls being told
by Bran that the suspension came about because “they [Bran
and other managers] found more evidence.” (Tr. 169.) The
suspension also says that Chuc had a prior discipline which
Bran explains is the written warning from earlier that same day
for the same May 22 Chuc incident. (Tr. 94; GC Exh. 4.)
Bran admits that he suspended Chuc for the same May 22
Chuc incident that Bran already issued a written warning about
to Chuc. (Tr. 90; GC Exh. 3 and GC Exh. 4.) Bran says the
written warning was issued at the beginning of Chuc’s shift on
May 23 and the suspension was issued at the end of Chuc’s
shift approximately 10 hours later. (Tr. 90–91.) Bran further
admits that there was no additional information obtained or
damaged blankets discovered by Bran after Chuc was suspend-
ed. (Tr. 94–95.) Bran further explains that Shift Manager
Monzon was in Bran’s office when Bran handed Chuc the sus-
pension. (Tr. 94.) At the time of Chuc’s suspension on May 23,
Bran was fully aware of the 10 damaged colored blankets relat-
ed to the May 22 Chuc incident.11 (Tr. 95.)
At no time after Chuc was suspended on May 23 did Bran
interview Chuc or have any other conversation with him about
the May 22 Chuc incident. (Tr. 101, 116.) Bran says he did call
Supervisor Quintana and asked him about Chuc’s statements
about Quintana ordering Chuc to use the stain wash cycle on
the two loads of 10 colored blankets. (Tr. 101.) Bran did not

11 I reject Bran’s statement as untrue that at the time Bran issued the
written warning to Chuc, Bran “didn’t know exactly how many [dam-
aged] pieces there were.” Tr. 95. Supervisors Monzon and Quintana
saw the 10 damaged blankets that Chuc delivered to them the night of
the May 22 Chuc incident and Bran admits that these 10 blankets were
delivered to his office the next day and that he looked at them with
Quintana. Tr. 87–88.
follow up with Chuc to get more of his side of the story. Id.
Martin opines that Respondent’s standard protocol is to sus-
pend an employee first and then do a full investigation. (Tr. 57,
88.) Martin further opines that sometimes it takes 2 weeks to
get the full story from an investigation with managers working
two shifts, days off are strange, so as to “speak to everybody
[about an incident], get a hold of everyone, and do the proper
paperwork [about the outcome of an incident investigation.”
(Tr. 30–31.) Martin further adds that no investigation is typical
but Respondent tries to get everyone’s facts and Respondent
also tries to make sure everyone reciting the facts is being truth-
ful. (Tr. 31.)
Martin further explained that Chuc was suspended for burn-
ing blankets and “not telling anyone about it. . . . .” (Tr. 60.)
Martin further opines that the dryer was set too high of temper-
ature and it burnt all of the items (2 loads of colored blankets)
in both loads. Id. Also, Martin opines that Chuc knew these 2
loads of colored blankets were for tests to try and get the new
Hilton account. (Tr. 61.)
On May 26, the Union filed a charge to Martin’s attention
which became this case with the Board against Respondent (the
May 2016 case). On June 3, the Union filed a first amended
charge also to Martin’s attention on behalf of Chuc in this May
2016 case. (GC Exhs. 1(a) and 1(d).)
I. The Investigation of the May 22 Chuc Incident
Bran believes that Supervisor Quintana ordered Chuc to
wash the 10 colored blankets using the stronger white or col-
ored stain wash cycle Nos. 18 or 19, dry them, and return them
to Supervisor Quintana which was done by Chuc. (Tr. 103,
114–115.) Chuc convincingly recalled that May 22 was the
only day that Supervisor Quintana gave him specific orders to
wash the 10 blankets using a double stain wash cycle. (Tr. 182–
183.) In addition, Bran confirms that the 10 colored blankets at
issue here were washed by Chuc on the stronger stain wash
cycle than the usual colored blanket wash cycle No. 3 and that
Wash cycle No. 19 has a longer cycle, runs at a higher tempera-
ture, and uses “more chemistry” on linen being washed.12 (Tr.
104, 121, 184.) Bran opines that for the blankets, “one stain
wash was more than enough.” (Tr. 119.) Bran further explains
that the instructions to use the stain wash usually meant just one
stain wash and not 2 stain wash cycles. (Tr. 118.)
While Bran also mentioned that Respondent had no prior
problems with its stain wash burning any sample linens from
Hilton Grand Vacations earlier in the week, there was no defi-
nite confirmation that the stain wash that was used on any col-
ored blankets from Hilton were washed on anything but the No.
19 colored blankets wash cycle as contrasted with colored
blankets washed on the No. 18 stain wash cycle with bleach.
(Tr. 105–106.) In fact, Bran later confirms that no other types
of linens owned by Hilton were washed in the stain wash cycle
prior to May 22. Thus, May 22 was the first day of the test

12 I reject Martin’s opinion that the stain wash process does not get
to a high enough temperature to damage blankets and that “it’s just not
physically possible.” Tr. 64–65. This opinion is in conflict with Bran’s
opinion that Washer cycle No. 19 runs hotter and uses more chemicals.
Consequently, common logic dictates that a double stain wash cycle
No. 19 would run even hotter and use double the chemicals.
APEX LINEN SERVICE 9
period that Respondent was asked to wash anything including
colored blankets on double stain wash.13 (Tr. 105–106.) More-
over, Bran further admits that on May 22, the Respondent tried
to use a stronger wash formula to remove stains on Hilton’s
linens so the color stain setting No. 19 for the first time was
used over the usual colored blankets setting No. 3.14 (Tr. 114.)
More importantly, May 22 is the only day that Chuc received
specific wash orders from Supervisor Quintana as to the 10
Hilton blankets. (Tr. 182–183.) Chuc also opined that the
lighter wash cycle for colored blankets, setting No. 3, would
have been the proper wash cycle to use instead of the double
stain wash ordered by Supervisor Quintana for Hilton’s colored
blankets that were damaged as part of the May 22 Chuc inci-
dent. (Tr. 184.)
The Respondent was unable to determine what dryer setting
Chuc used on May 22 in connection with the 10 damaged blan-
kets.15 (Tr. 115.)
The two loads of damaged colored blankets occurred toward
the end of a weeklong test process between Respondent and
Hilton. (Tr. 60–61.) Respondent did not get the laundry con-
tract with Hilton Grand Vacations. (Tr. 62.) Hilton supposedly
mentioned to Martin that “they weren’t happy with the wash
test.” (Tr. 33.)
Martin opined that Chuc’s conduct for the May 22 Chuc in-
cident was investigated just the same as Respondent would
investigate anything involving employee misconduct or dam-
aged laundry as a committee was formed first to investigate the
incident before any decision to terminate Chuc was made. (Tr.
27.) According to Martin, the committee was comprised of
Bran, Monzon, and Martin before Martin made the ultimate
decision to terminate Chuc. (Tr. 27.) Later in his testimony,
Martin changes the composition of the committee to add Quin-
tana to the committee who met to investigate the May 22 inci-
dent. (Tr. 31.)
Martin further described the investigation as involving man-
agement who were directly on the plant floor as shift supervi-
sors (Monzon and Quintana) who saw the actual product and
the 10 blanket damage and everything. (Tr. 31–32.)
Martin oversaw the investigation of the May 23 Chuc inci-
dent after Chuc was suspended. (Tr. 63.) Martin did not go
directly to speak to other employees on the floor or anything
like that. Id. Martin later confirms that Bran, Monzon, and

13 This testimony is in conflict with Bran’s later response to a lead-
ing question by Respondent’s counsel on cross-examination which I
reject: that Respondent was using the same stain wash all week before
May 22 on Hilton’s blankets. Tr. 106.
14 Bran denies that Quintana ordered Chuc to use the white stain with
Oxalic setting No. 18 on Hilton’s 10 colored blankets. Tr. 114.
15 Because Respondent was unable to replicate the same damage to
the 10 Hilton blankets using various dryer settings after-the-fact, I
further find Respondent’s investigation incomplete as it is more proba-
ble than not that Respondent would have had better success replicating
the 10 Hilton blanket damage if it used washer setting No. 18 for white
stain with Oxalic or two times washed under the washer setting No. 19
for colored stain as alleged by Chuc and ordered by Supervisor Quin-
tana. The fact that Respondent did not even attempt to replicate the
damage using the double stain wash cycle No. 19 or various washer
settings as Chuc said it occurred is evidence that Respondent’s investi-
gation was improperly conducted.
Quintana conducted the investigation of the May 23 Chuc inci-
dent. Id. Martin did not speak to Chuc as part of the investiga-
tion before Chuc was terminated. (Tr. 64.) Martin admits that
he ultimately made the decision to terminate Chuc on June 10.
(Tr. 63; GC Exh. 5.) Martin terminated Chuc because he
“couldn’t find a way that this [May 23 Chuc incident] was ac-
cidental” and after it happened, Martin says he fired Chuc also
because he did not come forward and tell anyone of the dam-
aged blankets. (Tr. 64.) Martin further opines that everyone
makes mistakes and owns up to it but Chuc covered it up. Id.
Bran double-checked with Respondent’s engineer crew to
confirm that nothing was mechanically wrong with Respond-
ent’s dryers to damage the blankets on May 22 as Chuc did.
(Tr. 86.) Bran tried to duplicate the damaged blankets on some
sample blankets to determine if the damaged blankets were a
mistake but he could not replicate the damage using the dryer
alone. (Tr. 86–87.) Bran admits that only the dryer was tested
to replicate the damaged blankets and that at no time did Bran
try to replicate the blankets’ damage using a standard stain
wash cycle with colored blankets. (Tr. 96.)
The Respondent committee concluded that Chuc maliciously
damaged about 10 blankets in an effort to stop Respondent
from getting a new property laundry contract with Hilton Grand
Vacations on Las Vegas Boulevard in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Tr.
28, 32.) Martin further opined that the 10 blanket damage from
the May 22 Chuc incident was part of a sample dry run for
Respondent to try and secure a multi-million dollar new ac-
count with Hilton Hotels and that the incident is a “pretty gross
offense” as Respondent was in the final stages of the bid pro-
cess with Hilton. Id. Martin next alleges that Chuc had other
behavioral issues in his 4 years at Respondent but that they did
not come into play regarding the damaged blankets and Chuc’s
termination.16 Id.
Martin changes his description of the Chuc incident regard-
ing the Hilton blanket damage from the similar wrong washer
setting where the wrong colored stain formulas with bleach that
turned blue blankets orange similar to the damage Juarez
caused that resulted in Respondent issuing him a written warn-
ing to a new description by Martin of the incident involving
Chuc. (Tr. 49–59, 57–58.) Martin now describes the Hilton
blanket damage as resulting from Chuc using the wrong dryer
setting as two loads of overheated blankets that practically
melted from the heat, almost welded to each other, so that if
one were to pull it apart, you would have holes in it and they
are destroyed. (Tr. 57–58.)17
Martin later confirms that Supervisor Quintana told Chuc to
specifically wash the colored blankets on the “stain wash”
cycle rather than on the “colored blanket” cycle which would
normally be the standard process washing cycle for colored

16 No evidence was produced in support of this wild claim by Mar-
tin. I reject this allegation as being another false statement by Martin
that Chuc had any behavioral issues at Respondent.
17 Bran also responds “yes” to a leading question on re-cross exami-
nation from Respondent’s lawyer as to whether “looking at the blan-
kets, could you visibly see that there was [sic] burns on it?” Tr. 119. I
reject this testimony as being the result of a leading question. See e.g.
H.C. Thomson, 230 NLRB 808, 809 fn. 2 (1977) (answers to leading
questions not entitled to credence).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD10
blankets “if it weren’t a new special account.” (Tr. 65.) I reject
this statement as inconsistent with Chuc’s more credible expla-
nation that Supervisor Quintana ordered Chuc to use a double
stain wash formula cycle No. 19 over the standard process
washing cycle No. 3 for colored blankets.
Martin had knowledge that Respondent was settling a charge
filed by Chuc against the Respondent in late May/early June in
Case 28–CA–173178 and that Chuc would be a signatory with
Martin on the settlement agreement. (Tr. 40–41; GC Exh. 2.)
Martin said that he and Respondent get charges filed by the
Union all the time these days and that: “It’s very frustrating.”
(Tr. 41.) Martin testified that he did not care that Chuc had filed
a charge or that employees support the union but later Martin
admitted that the Board charges are a financial drain on Re-
spondent, including requiring managers to attend hearings. (Tr.
67, 70–71.)
J. New Charge in Case No. 28-CA-177062, the Chuc
Discrimination Claims
On June 3, the Union filed an amended charge on behalf of
Chuc against Respondent in this Case 28–CA–177062 which
alleges that Respondent discriminated against employees Chuc,
and Eloy Gomez, and Ana de la Torre by disciplining, suspend-
ing, or discharging them because of their union activities and in
order to discourage such. (GC Exh. 1(c).)
K. Chuc Is Discharged by Respondent for the Same May 22
Chuc Incident
On June 8, the decision to terminate Chuc for the May 22
Chuc incident had been made by Martin after the investigation.
(Tr. 96–97; GC Exh. 5.) Bran tried to contact Chuc to com-
municate the termination later that day at 4 p.m. and 4:15 p.m.
and left messages for Chuc to come into Respondent to meet.
On June 10, Respondent discharged Chuc “[b]ased on inves-
tigation took place 5/23/16 it determ [sic] were negligent proper
[sic] drying causing damage on property and company items.”
(GC Exh. 5.) Martin admits that he played a significant part in
terminating Chuc and opines that his role in Chuc’s termination
was that of ultimate decision maker after a Respondent commit-
tee investigated the May 22 Chuc incident.18 (Tr. 27–28.) Mar-
tin admits that everything he learned about the May 22 Chuc
incident investigation came to Martin from Manager Bran,
Supervisor Monzon and Supervisor Quintana. (Tr. 72.) Martin
opines that Respondent properly investigated the May 22 Chuc
incident. (Tr. 70–71.)
Monzon denies having anything to do in the decision to dis-
charge Chuc. (Tr. 83.) Bran recalls that when Chuc was in-
formed he was being terminated, Chuc responded only, “That’s
fine.” (Tr. 111.) This is the only conversation that Bran had
with Chuc regarding the damaged linen. (Tr. 116.)

18 Plant Manager Bran disagrees with Martin and Bran says: “Actu-
ally, I’m the one that makes the decisions when I terminate employees”
and that Bran, not Martin, made the decision to terminate Chuc a cou-
ple weeks after Bran suspended Chuc solely due to the damage cost to
the laundry (Hilton’s damaged 10 blankets). Tr. 86–87, 97. I reject
Bran’s testimony here in direct conflict with Martin’s as I observed
Martin to be the more credible and confident witness on the subject of
who suspended and terminated Chuc.
Bran opines that Chuc destroyed the 10 blankets either on
purpose or from Chuc’s negligence as to the way Chuc dried
the 10 blankets and that is what caused the damaged blankets.
(Tr. 116–117.) Bran further says that he believes that Chuc
knew he would damage the 10 blankets when he used the dryer
setting he entered and that Chuc did it knowing it would de-
stroy all 10 blankets. (Tr. 117.) Finally, Bran further opines that
Chuc choosing to destroy the 10 blankets by using an improper
dryer formula is unexplainable to Bran.19 (Tr. 118.)
Analysis
I. CREDIBILITY
A credibility determination may rely on a variety of factors,
including the context of the witness’ testimony, the witness’
demeanor, and the weight of the respective evidence, estab-
lished or admitted facts, inherent probabilities and reasonable
inferences that may be drawn from the record as a whole. Dou-
ble D Construction Group, 339 NLRB 303, 305 (2003);
Daikichi Sushi, 335 NLRB 622, 623 (2001) (citing Shen Auto-
motive Dealership Group, 321 NLRB 586, 589 (1996)), enfd.
56 Fed.Appx. 516 (D.C. Cir. 2003). Credibility findings need
not be all-or-nothing propositions—indeed, nothing is more
common in all kinds of judicial decisions than to believe some,
but not all, of a witness’ testimony. Daikichi Sushi, 335 NLRB
at 622.
The Board has agreed that “when a party fails to call a wit-
ness who may reasonably be assumed to be favorably disposed
to the party, an adverse inference may be drawn regarding any
factual question on which the witness is likely to have
knowledge.” International Automated Machines, 285 NLRB
1122, 1123 (1987), enfd. 861 F.2d 720 (6th Cir. 1988). This is
particularly true where the witness is the Respondent’s agent.
Roosevelt Memorial Medical Center, 348 NLRB 1016, 1022
(2006). Moreover, an adverse inference is warranted by the
unexpected failure of a witness to testify regarding a factual
issue upon which the witness would likely have knowledge.
See Martin Luther King, Sr., Nursing Center, 231 NLRB 15, 15
fn. 1 (1977) (adverse inference appropriate where no explana-
tion as to why supervisors did not testify); Flexsteel Industries,
316 NLRB 745, 758 (1995) (failure to examine a favorable
witness regarding factual issue upon which that witness would
likely have knowledge gives rise to the “strongest possible
adverse inference” regarding such fact). In this case I make an
adverse inference.
It is impossible to reconcile all of the different recollections
of the witnesses for both sides. In evaluating the various differ-
ent versions of events, I have fully reviewed the entire record
and carefully observed the demeanor of all the witnesses. I have
considered the apparent interests of the witnesses; the inherent
probabilities in light of other events; corroboration or the lack
of it; consistencies or inconsistencies within the testimony of
each witness and between witnesses with similar apparent in-

19 I reject Bran’s opinions that a dryer damaged the 10 colored blan-
kets as I find Chuc’s explanation for the damaged blankets more be-
lievable that Supervisor Quintana ordered Chuc for the first time on
May 22 to use a double stain wash formula No. 19 and this very strong
wash cycle damaged the 10 colored blankets.
APEX LINEN SERVICE 11
terests. See, e.g., NLRB v. Walton Mfg. Co., 369 U.S. 404, 408
(1962). Testimony in contradiction to my factual findings has
been carefully considered but discredited. Where there is incon-
sistent evidence on a relevant point, my credibility findings are
incorporated into my legal analysis below.
Chuc testified consistently throughout his testimony which
raises no doubts in my mind as to the events he described that
occurred particularly on May 22 and 23, 2016. Specifically, I
acknowledge that Chuc’s testimony at hearing differed from his
testimony through an earlier affidavit and I attribute the varia-
tion to a truthful more reasoned answer with no assumptions as
contained in the affidavit. I give more weight to Chuc’s honest
testimony at hearing than his more speculative guess that dyed
towels in a wash cycle remained dyed after his shift was over
and the wash cycle continued. The dye transfer apparently took
place in the tunnel when Chuc’s shift was ending and he origi-
nally thought that the dye transfer had been permanent when at
hearing he thought there a possibility that the dye transfer got
resolved since his shift ended before the towels at issue were
done washing. (Tr. 170.) Also, I attribute Chuc’s thinking that
Bran and not Martin was responsible for warning, suspending,
and terminating him to the fact that Chuc faced Bran with this
discipline at Respondent. Martin convincingly admitted that as
chief operating officer of Respondent, he made the overall dis-
cipline decisions, other than issue the written warning, and
Bran carried them out on Martin’s orders.
I also find the Union’s director of legal affairs, Norbert Ku-
biak (Kubiak) to be a believable witness who appeared very
professional and testified consistently without hesitation and
took his testimony seriously. Respondent elected not to cross-
examine Kubiak. Supervisor Monzon also testified in a straight-
forward manner without pause throughout most of her limited
testimony.
Respondent’s former supervisor and agent, Supervisor Diego
Quintana, did not testify at hearing to confirm whether he or-
dered Chuc to use a double stain wash formula on the 10 dam-
aged Hilton blankets on May 22, 2016. I draw an adverse in-
ference from this as “when a party fails to call a witness who
may reasonably be assumed to be favorably disposed to the
party, an adverse inference may be drawn regarding any factual
question on which the witness is likely to have knowledge. In
particular, it may be inferred that the witness, if called, would
have testified adversely to the party on that issue.” Internation-
al Automated Machines, above. Thus, I infer that if Supervisor
Quintana had been called, he would have further admitted that
he relayed orders from Respondent’s upper management for
Chuc to use a double wash formula on Hilton’s 10 colored
blankets which caused the May 22 Chuc incident damage and
not Chuc’s mistake, negligence, or malicious intention to dam-
age Hilton’s blankets. Respondent did not provide any explana-
tion as to why Quintana did not testify or show that Quintana
was unavailable or that it tried to subpoena him to hearing. See
Martin Luther King, Sr., Nursing Center, above; Flexsteel In-
dustries, above (failure to examine a favorable witness regard-
ing factual issue upon which that witness would likely have
knowledge gives rise to the “strongest possible adverse infer-
ence” regarding such fact).
Other than Martin completely being unaware of Chuc’s writ-
ten warning discipline for the same May 22 Chuc incident—
which is surprising—I found in observing Martin, as a part-
owner of Respondent and its highest ranking official, that he
was much more relaxed, confident and credible with his testi-
mony than Bran was as to who actually made the decisions to
suspend and discharge Chuc (even though Bran, unbelievably,
said these last two decisions were his to make). Bran’s untrue
statements that he had final authority over Martin to suspend
and terminate Chuc are rejected as not credible. Martin testified
inconsistently as to the incomplete investigation of Chuc, his
untrue statement that Chuc concealed the damaged blankets and
did not tell anyone about it, and his false statement that Chuc
had behavioral issues. Martin also appeared flustered at times
in his testimony. Martin acted new and inexperienced to union
campaigns and slightly overwhelmed dealing with union activi-
ties on a frequent basis and he complained it was frustrating
and was causing a high financial drain on Respondent.
II. RESPONDENT’S UNLAWFUL DISCIPLINE OF THE CHARGING
PARTY CHUC
A. Chuc’s Protected Union Activities and Respondent’s
Knowledge of Them
Complaint paragraphs 6 and 8–10 allege that the Respondent
has been discriminating in regard to the tenure and terms or
conditions of employment of Chuc, discouraging membership
in a labor organization or discriminating against Chuc for filing
charges under the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
and Section 8(a)(4) and (1) of the Act, respectively, when he
received a written warning, a suspension, and a discharge, for
the same offense.
Under Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, an employer may not dis-
criminate with regard to hire, tenure, or any term or condition
of employment in order to encourage or discourage member-
ship in a labor organization. In addition, under Section 8(a)(4)
of the Act, an employer cannot discriminate with regard to
tenure or any term or condition of employment for an employ-
ee’s filing charges under the Act. For both 8(a)(3) and 8(a)(4)
violations, the Board applies the analysis set forth in Wright
Line to determine whether the adverse employment action was
effected for prohibited reasons. 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd.
662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982).
Under Wright Line, to establish unlawful discrimination on
the basis of union activity, the General Counsel must make an
initial showing that antiunion animus was a substantial or moti-
vating factor for the employer’s action by demonstrating that:
(1) the employee engaged in union activity; (2) the employer
had knowledge of that union activity; and (3) the employer
harbored antiunion animus. Amglo Kemlite Laboratories, 360
NLRB 319, slip op. at 7 (2014). Proof of animus and discrimi-
natory motivation may be based on direct evidence or inferred
from circumstantial evidence. If the General Counsel satisfies
this standard, the burden then shifts to the employer “to demon-
strate that the same action would have taken place even in the
absence of the protected conduct.” Id. The employer cannot
carry this burden merely by showing that it also had a legiti-
mate reason for the action, but must persuade, by a preponder-
ance of the evidence, that the action would have taken place
absent the protected activity. Dentech Corp., 294 NLRB 924,
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD12
956 (1989).
With respect to the General Counsel’s initial showing, it is
undisputed that Chuc engaged in protected activities by wear-
ing a union committee leader union button on a daily basis,
participating in the March 17 union march and picketing at the
Tropicana Hotel, the March 31, 2016 union march and picket-
ing photographed and videoed by Respondent at the Treasure
Island Hotel, and filing a charge against Respondent in Case
28–CA–173178 which was later delivered to Respondent and
Martin in the form of a draft settlement agreement before Chuc
was terminated on June 10, 2016. Chuc also filed an amended
charge in Case 28–CA–177062 before he was terminated. For
reasons previously stated, I further find that Martin was aware
of all of these protected union activities and concerted activi-
ties.
At issue is whether the General Counsel demonstrated that
the Respondent harbored antiunion animus, thus meeting his
initial burden.
B. Respondent’s Animus
The third element, animus, is explained below and is readily
established by the close timing of Respondent’s discipline of
Chuc in relation to his protected activities, the disparate and
abnormally-severe discipline of Chuc as compared to other
employees, Respondent’s failure to conduct a reasonable inves-
tigation, and its shifting explanations and false statements for
this discriminatory written warning, suspension and discharge.
Evidence that may establish a discriminatory motive—i.e.,
that the employer’s hostility to protected activity “contributed
to” its decision to take adverse action against the employee—
includes, among other things: (1) close timing between discov-
ery of the employee’s protected activities and the discipline
(see, e.g., Traction Wholesale Center Co. v. NLRB, 216 F.3d
92, 99 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (immediately after employer learned
that union had obtained a majority of authorization cards from
employees, it fired an employee who had signed a card)); (2)
the departure from established discipline procedures; (3) inap-
propriate or excessive penalty; (4) an incomplete or inadequate
investigation into the alleged employee adverse conduct; and
(5) evidence that the employer’s asserted reason for the em-
ployee’s discipline was pretextual, such as disparate treatment
of the employee, shifting explanations provided for the adverse
action, failure to investigate whether the employee engaged in
the alleged misconduct, or providing a nondiscriminatory ex-
planation that defies logic or is clearly baseless (see, e.g.,
Camaco Lorain Mfg. Plant, 356 NLRB 1182, 1185 (2011);
CNN America, Inc., 361 NLRB 439 (2014); Lucky Cab Co.,
360 NLRB 271 (2014); Manor Care Health Services—Easton,
356 NLRB 202, 204 (2010); Greco & Haines, Inc., 306 NLRB
634, 634 (1992); Wright Line, 251 NLRB at 1088 fn.12, citing
Shattuck Denn Mining Co. v. NLRB, 362 F.2d 466, 470 (9th
Cir. 1966); Cincinnati Truck Center, 315 NLRB 554, 556–557
(1994), enfd. sub nom. NLRB v. Transmart, Inc., 117 F.3d 1421
(6th Cir. 1997); and K&M Electronics, 283 NLRB 279, 291
(1987)).
Here, the timing of Chuc’s written May 23 warning, the May
23 suspension, and the June 10 discharge, less than 2 months
after Chuc’s union picketing at the Treasure Island Hotel, about
a month and a half after Chuc filed the April 4 charge with the
Board in Case 28–CA–1173178 against Respondent, and im-
mediately after Chuc filed his amended charge in Case 28–CA–
177062 against Respondent, together support an inference that
these union activities motivated the Respondent to issue a writ-
ten warning, suspension, and discharge for the same, single
offense.
Respondent’s discipline of Chuc was excessive. He was first
given a written warning for the May 22 Chuc incident. Later on
May 23, Respondent issued Chuc a suspension for the exact
same May 22 Chuc incident. A few weeks later, Respondent
discharged Chuc for the exact same May 22 Chuc incident.
Amusingly, the suspension and discharge make reference to a
“prior discipline” which, Bran explained, was the May 23 writ-
ten warning. This is blatant pretext for adverse action, as there
was no prior discipline issued to Chuc save the triple discipline
relating to the same May 22 Chuc incident. Chuch’s discipline
record was spotless before May 23. Martin described Chuc as
“a great employee.” I find that this inappropriate or excessive
penalty issued to Chuc for the same May 22 incident is evi-
dence of animus.
Respondent conducted an incomplete or inadequate investi-
gation into Chuc’s alleged adverse conduct by failing to inter-
view him at any time, and failing to try and duplicate the 10
colored blanket damage by putting blankets though similar
double stain wash cycle No. 19 formula washes as Respondent
only focused on dryer conditions. (See i.e., footnote 15 above.)
In addition, Respondent mentioned other problems caused by
its own supervisors which is similar to the orders provided him
by Supervisor Quintana here and Respondent failed to inter-
view other employees who were present on May 22 to deter-
mine whether its own management was involved in the dam-
aged blankets. (Tr. 63–64, 72.) The employer’s failure to give
an employee the opportunity to explain the circumstances for
which he is being disciplined or discharged supports a finding
of employer pretext. Diamond Electric Mfg. Corp., 346 NLRB
857, 861 (2006); La Gloria Oil & Gas Co., 337 NLRB 1120,
1124 (2002). Respondent’s failure to allow Chuc the opportuni-
ty to respond to the allegations of misconduct is indicative of
animus.
Respondent’s false explanations for disciplining Chuc are
additional evidence of animus. Martin said that the reason Chuc
was suspended was that he hid the damaged blankets from sight
and management. (Tr. 60.) This is not true, as Shift Manager
Monzon and Supervisor Quintana were fully aware of all of the
damaged blankets from the May 22 Chuc incident. Quintana
not only delivered all of the damaged blankets to Bran’s office,
but also emailed or texted that the damaged blankets were left
in Bran’s office early the morning of May 23. Also, Martin
made up his story that Chuc suffered from behavioral issues as
no evidence to support this false claim was presented. Similar-
ly, Bran’s explanation that Chuc was suspended because Bran
discovered new additional information on May 23 is untrue as
Bran admits that everything he learned about the damaged
blankets he learned from Supervisor Quintana and there was
never any new additional information found by Bran and relat-
ed to the May 22 Chuc incident. I further find Respondent’s
shifting explanations provided for Chuc’s adverse action as
APEX LINEN SERVICE 13
further evidence of pretext and antiunion animus.
Moreover, the record shows that the suspension and dis-
charge were not consistent with the Respondent’s previous
application of its disciplinary policy. Under similar circum-
stances, Juarez received only a written warning for damaging
colored blankets owned by the Cosmopolitan Hotel. Respond-
ent’s actions demonstrate blatant disparate treatment of Chuc.
This departure by Respondent from its prior discipline policy is
further evidence of animus.
Having found overwhelming evidence of animus to support
the General Counsel’s initial burden, I turn to whether the Re-
spondent has established that it would have warned, suspended,
or discharged Chuc for damaging blankets even in the absence
of the protected conduct. I find that the Respondent failed to
make that showing.
Because I have found that the General Counsel has met his
burden, the burden shifts to Respondent. The employer cannot
meet its burden merely by showing that it had a legitimate rea-
son for its action; rather, it must demonstrate that it would have
taken the same action in the absence of the protected conduct.
Bruce Packing Co., 357 NLRB 1084, 1086–1087 (2011); Bal-
ly’s Atlantic City, 355 NLRB 1319, 1321 (2010), enfd. 646
F.3d 929 (D.C. Cir. 2011). If the employer’s proffered reasons
are pretextual (i.e., either false or not actually relied on) as here,
the employer fails to show that it would have taken the same
action for those reasons regardless of the protected conduct.
Metropolitan Transportation Services, 351 NLRB 657, 659
(2007). The trier of fact may not only reject a witness’ story,
but also determine that the truth is the complete opposite.
Boothwyn Fire Co. No. 1, 363 NLRB No. 191, slip op. at 7
(2016).
Because of the incredible evidence of animus referenced
above, Respondent does not prove that it would have disci-
plined, suspended, or discharged Chuc regardless of his pro-
tected concerted activities. In these circumstances, I find that
Respondent warned, suspended, and discharged Chuc because
he was affiliated with the Union and because he cooperated
with the Board in bringing two unfair labor practice cases, all in
violation of Section 8(a)(4), (3), and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. By issuing a written warning, suspending, and discharging
employee Hugo Chuc because he joined and assisted the Union
and engaged in concerted union activities, including wearing a
union committee leader button daily and marching and picket-
ing at the Treasure Island Hotel on March 31, 2016, and/or to
discourage employees from engaging in these activities, the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
3. By issuing a written warning, suspending, and discharging
employee Hugo Chuc because he joined and assisted the Union
and engaged in concerted activities, including filing two charg-
es with the National Labor Relations Board in Cases 28–CA–
173178 and 28–CA–177062 against the Respondent, the Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(4) and (1) of the Act.
4. The above unfair labor practices affect commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The Respondent has not violated the Act in any other
manner.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I find that they must cease and desist from
such practices and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Specifically, having concluded that the Respondent is re-
sponsible for the unlawful written warning, suspension, and
discharge of employee Hugo Chuc, the Respondent must offer
him immediate 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 and privileges
previously enjoyed. I also order that Respondent make Hugo
Chuc whole, with interest, for any loss of earnings and other
benefits that he may have suffered as a result of the discrimina-
tion against him. Backpay shall be computed in accordance
with F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest
at the rate prescribed in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173
(1987), compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River
Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010). Also, Respondent must
compensate Hugo Chuc for his search-for-work and interim
employment expenses regardless of whether those expenses
exceed each of their interim earnings. King Soopers, Inc., 364
NLRB No. 93, slip op. at 9 (2016). Search-for-work and inter-
im employment expenses shall be calculated separately from
taxable net backpay, with interest at the rate prescribed in New
Horizons, supra, compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky
River Medical Center, supra. In addition, the Respondent shall
compensate Hugo Chuc for the adverse tax consequences, if
any, of receiving a lump-sum backpay award, and file a report
with the Social Security Administration allocating the backpay
award to the appropriate calendar quarters for him. Don Cha-
vas, LLC d/b/a Tortillas Don Chavas, 361 NLRB 101 (2014).
The Respondent shall also be required to expunge from its files
any and all references to the written warning, suspension, and
discharge, and to notify Hugo Chuc in writing that this has been
done and that none of these unlawful disciplines will be used
against him in any way.
The Respondent shall also post the notice in accord with J.
Picini Flooring, 356 NLRB 11, 15–16 (2010). In accordance
with J. Picini Flooring, the question as to whether an electronic
notice is appropriate should be resolved at the compliance
phase. Id. at 13.
On these findings of fact, conclusions of law, and upon the
entire record, pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby
issue the following recommended20
ORDER
The Respondent, Apex Linen Service, Inc., a Nevada corpo-
ration, with a facility in Las Vegas, Nevada, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall

20 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopt-
ed by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for
all purposes.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD14
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Unlawfully warning, suspending, or discharging or oth-
erwise discriminating against Respondent’s employees because
they joined and assisted the Union and engaged in concerted
activities, including filing a charge with the National Labor
Relations Board against the Respondent, and/or to discourage
employees from engaging in these activities.
(b) Unlawfully warning, suspending, or discharging or oth-
erwise discriminating against Respondent’s employees because
they had charges filed with the National Labor Relations Board
on their behalf.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer em-
ployee Hugo Chuc immediate and full reinstatement to his for-
mer 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.
(b) Make employee Hugo Chuc whole for any loss of earn-
ings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination
against him, as set forth in the remedy section of this decision.
(c) Compensate employee Hugo Chuc for the adverse tax
consequences, if any, of receiving a lump-sum backpay award,
and submit the appropriate report to the Social Security Admin-
istration so that when backpay is paid to him, it will be allocat-
ed for him to the appropriate calendar quarters.
(d) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from
its files any reference to the unlawful written warning, suspen-
sion, and discharge, and within 3 days thereafter, notify em-
ployee Hugo Chuc in writing that this has been done and that
the loss of employment will not be used against him in any
way.
(e) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such addi-
tional time as the Regional Director may allow for good cause
shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the Board
or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment rec-
ords, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored
in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay
due under the terms of this Order.
(f) Within 14 days from the date of this order, post at its fa-
cilities in and around Las Vegas, Nevada, copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix”21 in both English and Spanish.
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 28, after being signed by the Respondent’s au-
thorized representative, shall also be posted by the Respondent
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 Respondent to

21 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material. In addition to physical posting of paper
notices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by
email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other
electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates
with its employees by such means. In the event that, during the
pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of
business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings,
the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a
copy of the notice to all current employees and former employ-
ees employed by the Respondent at any time since June 10,
2016.
(g) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. August 1, 2017
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
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this No-
tice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT do anything to prevent you from exercising the
above rights.
WE WILL NOT discipline, suspend, or fire employees because
of their union activities or support.
WE WILL NOT discipline, suspend, or fire employees because
they file charges with the National Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with
your rights under Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL remove from our files all references to the disci-
pline, suspension, and discharge of Hugo Chuc and WE WILL
notify him in writing that this has been done and that the writ-
ten warning will not be used against him in any way.
WE WILL offer Hugo Chuc immediate and full reinstatement
to his former job, or if that job no longer exists, to a substantial-
ly equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or any
other rights and/or privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL pay Hugo Chuc for the wages and other benefits he
lost because we fired him.
APEX LINEN SERVICE, INC.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at
APEX LINEN SERVICE 15
https://www.nlrb.gov/case/28-CA-177062 or by using the QR
code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the deci-
sion from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations
Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by
calling (202) 273–1940.