Centre Property Management, A Partnership

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 31, 1985

277 N.L.R.B. 1376 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

1376 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Centre Property Management , a Partnership and
Carl Westley Tanner . Case 15-CA-8135
31 December 1985
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
By CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
DENNIS AND JOHANSEN
On 18 October 1982 Administrative Law Judge
Lawrence W. Cullen issued a decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
On 21 February 1985 the Board issued a Decision
and Order Remanding, which directed the judge to
reanalyze, in light of Meyers Industries, 268 NLRB
493 (1984), his conclusion that the Respondent had
unlawfully- discharged employee Tanner. The deci-
sion further stated that the Board would defer
ruling on the judge's second conclusion that the
Respondent had unlawfully interrogated employee
Lemoine until the judge, had reanalyzed the dis-
charge. Centre Property Management, 274 NLRB
190 (1985). On 30 May 1985 the judge issued the
attached supplemental decision. The General Coun-
sel filed limited exceptions and a supporting brief.
The Respondent filed a brief in opposition to the
General Counsel's limited exceptions.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the supplemental deci-
sion and the record in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings,
findings, and conclusions only to the extent consist-
ent with this Supplemental Decision and Order.
We agree with the judge, for the reasons stated
in his supplemental decision, that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) by Property Manager Jack-
son's interrogation of employee Lemoine. We dis-
agree , however, with the judge's conclusion that
the Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(3) by
Jackson's discharge of employee Tanner.
Tanner informed Property Manager Jackson on
the morning of his discharge that he had reported
the Respondent to city officials for building code
violations and that he intended to unionize the Re-
spondent's employees. The judge found that the
General Counsel had made a prima facie case that
union animus was a motivating factor in Tanner's
discharge. He also found that the Respondent was
motivated in part to discharge Tanner for apparent-
ly reporting the Respondent to city officials. He
concluded that the discharge did not violate Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) under Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083
(1980), enfd. on other grounds 662 F. 2d 899 (1st
Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), reason-
ing that the Respondent would have discharged
Tanner even in the absence of his protected activi-
ty because Tanner's conduct in reporting the Re-
spondent for building code violations without con-
sulting it first was inconsistent with the Respond-
ent's interests, and Tanner's position as maintenance
man. The General Counsel excepts to this determi-
nation on the ground that the Respondent has not
carried its burden under Wright Line of rebutting
the General Counsel's prima facie case. We find
merit in this exception.
The Board held in Wright Line that, once the
General Counsel makes a prima facie showing that
the protected conduct was a motivating factor in
an employer's action against an employee, the
burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate that it
would have taken the same action even in the ab-
sence of the protected conduct. The employer
cannot carry this burden merely by showing that it
also had a legitimate reason for the action,. but
must "persuade" that the action would have taken
place even absent the protected conduct "by a pre-
ponderance of the evidence." Roure Bertrand
Dupont, Inc., 271 NLRB 443 (1984); NLRB v.°
Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393
(1983). A judge's personal belief that the employ-
er's legitimate reason was sufficient to warrant the
action taken is not a substitute for evidence'that the
employer would have relied on this reason alone.
Bronco Wine Co., 256 NLRB 53, 54 fn. 8 (1981). If
an employer fails to satisfy its burden of persua-
sion, a violation of the Act may be found. See, e.g.,
Bronco Wine.
We have carefully examined the record and find
that it contains no direct evidence that the Re-
spondent would have discharged Tanner for the
unprotected action of reporting building code vio-
lations alone. The testimony of Jackson supports a
finding that she discharged Tanner for his general
course of conduct on the morning of his discharge
without distinguishing between his protected and
unprotected activity. Indeed, Jackson testified that
when consulting the Respondent's attorney about a
reason to fire Tanner, she discussed with the attor-
ney not only Tanner's comments about building
code violations, but also his statement employees
were underpaid and that he had mentioned unioniz-
ing the property. When asked what relevance Tan-
ner's statements about unionization had to his dis-
charge, Jackson observed that Tanner "had all the
employees in an uproar ...."
The Respondent contends that Jackson's testimo-
ny that she decided to terminate Tanner before she
learned of his union activity establishes that she
would have terminated him in the absence of union
activity and that the Respondent has, therefore,
277 NLRB No. 154
CENTRE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
carried its burden of persuasion on this point. We
are unable to so conclude , however . Jackson never
explicitly testified that she would have discharged
Tanner solely for reporting building code viola-
tions . The statement cited by the Respondent is in-
consistent with other testimony of Jackson con-
cerning the timing of her decision to discharge
Tanner . Moreover, the statement is inconsistent
with the judge 's finding that union animus was a
motivating factor in the "decision to terminate
Tanner and thus was implicitly discredited. Ac-
cordingly , we conclude that the Respondent has
failed to carry its burden under Wright L ine of per-
suading by a preponderance of the evidence that it
would have discharged Tanner in the absence of
his union activity and that the discharge therefore
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent , Centre Property Manage-
ment, a Partnership , is an employer within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 103 of the United Federation of Inde-
pendent Unions is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act by interrogating and threatening employee Le-
moine concerning whether he had signed an au-
thorization petition for Local 103 of the United
Federation of Independent Unions.
4. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act by - discharging employee Tanner on
account of his union activity.
5. The above unfair labor practices affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having adopted the judge 's conclusion that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by interrogat-
ing and threatening employee Lemoine, and having
found in addition that the Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) and (1) by discharging employee
Tanner, we shall order the Respondent to cease
and desist from such conduct and post the appro-,
priate notice . We shall also order the Respondent
to offer Carl Tanner immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former position or its equivalent, to
make him whole for any loss of earnings or bene-
fits he may have sustained as a result of his dis-
charge , and to expunge any reference to the dis-
charge from its files. The loss of earnings and bene-
fits incurred by Tanner as a result of his discharge
shall be determined as prescribed in F. W. Wool-
worth Co ., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and awarded with
interest as computed in Florida Steel Corp., 231
1377
NLRB 651 (1977). See generally Isis Plumbing Co.,
138 NLRB 716 (1962).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that
the Respondent, Centre Property Management, a
Partnership , Baton Rouge , Louisiana , its agents,
successors , and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Coercively interrogating or threatening its
employees concerning their`' union activities or sym-
pathies.
(b) Discharging its employees for engaging in
union or other protected activity.
(c) In any like or related mariner interfering
with, restraining , or coercing employees in the ' ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer Carl Westley Tanner, immediate and
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) Remove from its files any reference to the
unlawful discharge of Carl Westley Tanner and
notify him in writing that this has been done and
that the discharge will not be used against him in
any way.
(c) Make Carl Westley Tanner whole for any
loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as . 'a
result of the discrimination against him, in the
manner set forth in the remedy section of this Sup-
plemental Decision and Order.
(d) Preserve and, on request, make available to
the Board or its agents for examination and copy-
ing, all payroll records, social security payment
records , timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary _ to analyze the,
amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order.
(e) Post at its facility in Baton Rouge, Louisiana,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix.""',
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 15, after being signed
by the Respondent's authorized representative,
shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
I 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 ofthe National
Labor Relations Board."
1378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent
to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director in writing
within 20 days from the date of this Order what
steps,the Respondent has taken to comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or pro-
tection
To choose not to engage in any of these
protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT coercively question or threaten
you concerning your union support or activities.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discrimi-
nate against any of you for supporting Local 103 of
the United Federation of Independent Unions or
any other union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain , or coerce you in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of
the Act.
WE WILL offer Carl Westley Tanner immediate
and full reinstatement to his former job or, if that
job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority or any
other rights or privileges previously enjoyed and
WE WILL make him whole for any loss of earnings
and other benefits resulting from his discharge, less
any net interim earnings, plus interest.
WE WILL notify him that we have removed from
our files any reference to his discharge and that the
discharge will not be used against him in any way.
CENTRE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, A
PARTNERSHIP
Clement J. Kennington, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Daniel Lund and Gus A. Fritchie III, Esqs. (Montgomery,
Barnett, Brown & Read), of New Orleans, Louisiana,
for the Respondent.
Carl Westley Tanner, the Charging Party, of Baton
Rouge, Louisiana, on his own behalf.
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LAWRENCE W. CULLEN, Administrative Law Judge.
On 18 October 1982 a decision was entered by me in this
case wherein I found that Respondent had violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act by the discharge of its employee
Carl Westley Tanner in retaliation for his purported
complaint to the city of Baton Rouge officials concern-
ing health and safety conditions with respect to un-
plugged sewer caps on Respondent's premises relying on
Alleluia Cushion Co., 221 NLRB 999 (1975). I also found
that Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
by its discharge of Tanner because of his efforts to orga-
nize a union among Respondent's employees.
The Board has since overruled Alleluia Cushion Co.,
supra, in its decision in Meyers Industries, 268 NLRB 493
(1984), and on review of the decision in the instant case
has remanded this case to me for review of the' record
and a determination whether Tanner engaged in concert-
ed activity within the Meyers definition that "[A]n em-
ployee's activity [is] `concerted' ... [when] engaged in
with or on the authority of other employees, and not
solely by and on behalf of the employee himself." The
Board also stated in its decision that "A finding that
Tanner's act of contacting local authorities concerning
plumbing violations was not concerted would thus re-
quire a mixed-motive analysis under Wright Line." The
Board thus also ordered me to reanalyze the case under
Wright Line consistent with my ultimate findings, and "to
prepare and serve on the parties a supplemental decision
containing credibility resolutions, findings of fact upon
the entire record, conclusions of law, and a recommend-
ed order consistent with the remand concerning those
sections of the complaint alleging that the discharge of
Carl Westley Tanner violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act."'
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE DISCHARGE OF TANNER
A. Facts
A brief review of the facts is as follows: Tanner was
hired on 18 February 1981 as a maintenance man by Re-
spondent (which operates a 620-unit apartment complex,
Sherwood Acres I and II in Baton Rouge, Louisiana),
following an interview by Respondent's resident apart-
ment manager Liz Claverie and Respondent's property
manager Linda K. Jackson, to whom Claverie reported.
Tanner testified that he was shown around the complex
by another maintenance man and at that time he noted a
number of open and missing plugs with toilet paper and
waste matter on the ground but was told by the other
maintenance man not to replace the plugs. Tanner testi-
fied that he said nothing but had intended to replace the
plugs as this is a serious health hazard as the open drains
' See Wright Line Inc, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd, 662 F 2d 899 (1st
Cir 1981), cert denied 455 U S 989 (1982), affd in NLRB v Transporta-
tion Management Corp, 462 U S 393 (1983)
CENTRE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 1379
emit waste and sewer gas. He also testified that he was a
member of the Pipefitter Plumbing Union and had also
worked as a plumbing inspector for the parish govern-
ment of Baton Rouge.
He worked on 18, 19 ., and 20 February and discussed
the formation of a union with Mary Ella Ferguson, a
housemaid assigned to the complex , and her brother
Major Schaefer . He did not work the intervening Satur-
day and Sunday and reported to work on Monday, 23
February , about 7 :40 a.m. and gathered with other em-
ployees in the lounge facility of the unit I office in ac-
cordance with the custom of the employees to gather
and drink coffee prior to the assignment of their work at
8 a.m. He proceeded to discuss the organization of a
union among Respondent 's employees , showed them
pamphlets issued by the National Labor Relations Board
and informed them of their rights to organize . Shortly
before 8 a .m., Resident Manager Claverie asked what
was going on and he told her that "Those are the pam-
phlets of the Labor Union, for when we form the
union," and Claverie then walked into her office and he
picked up the pamphlets and put them in his van. He
then put on his tool belt and walked into Claverie's
office to pick up his work orders. He also told Claverie
that replacements were necessary for missing sewer
plugs as he had replaced several he had found near the
sewer and had offered to buy the replacements the previ-
ous Friday but had been told by Claverie that a requisi-
tion for these plugs must be issued by the "main office."
He then told Claverie that the open sewers were a health
hazard and that the City Parish (Baton Rouge) Board of
Health could "shut us down" and "have the utilities cut
off" and that he knew this because he was a former
plumbing inspector . He inquired how long it would take
for a requistion to be issued, and Claverie replied she did
not know. Tanner then left to count the missing plugs
and made two or three small repairs and returned to his
van outside the office . At that time Property Manager
Jackson knocked on the office window and motioned for
him to come in the office . He did so and found house-
maid Ferguson , security guard Paul Frank Maranto Jr.,
Claverie, and Candice (Vaughn) Berry, Respondent's
leasing agent , inside. Jackson told Tanner to close the
door and then inquired about his reason for requesting
the plugs, and when he explained , Jackson said, "Oh,
well, we'll take care of that."
Jackson then asked Tanner whether he belonged to a
union and whether he had a union card, and he replied
in the affirmative . He went out to his van and brought in
the pamphlets , opened them, and told her he had enough
membership cards for all the employees . Jackson then
became excited and told him he was fired. She turned to
the other employees, told them she would fire anyone
who wanted to join the Union, she was not going to
have any union men working there , and told Tanner to
turn in his keys and get off the property. Tanner gave
her his keys and asked Jackson whether she was going to
give him a termination slip. Jackson then picked up a ter-
mination slip from the typewriter on the desk and
handed it to him. At that time, the security guard began
pushing Tanner to the door , and Tanner said that he was
going straight to the phone and call the inspection de-
partment to report the missing sewer plugs , which he
did. He later read the termination slip and found that
"threatened extortion" had been listed as the reason for
his termination . He later contacted Jackson by telephone
and asked her what this term meant , and she replied,
"Well, anytime anybody threatens me with a union for
more money , that's threatened extortion."
Ferguson testified that she was present on the morning
of 23 February with Tanner and other employees when
Tanner was discussing the formation of a union . Claverie
came in and told the employees it was time to go to
work, which they did. Ferguson received her assign-
ments and went to an apartment to clean it, but discov-
ered she had been given the wrong key. She then re-
turned to the office and overheard Claverie in a conver-
sation with Jackson wherein Claverie told Jackson to
come to the office and told Jackson there was trouble
and said , "Our maintenance man [Tanner ] turned out to
be a union man." Shortly thereafter , the security guard
arrived. Jackson knocked on the office window and told
Tanner to come into the office . Jackson then asked
Tanner to show her his identification . Tanner went out
to his van, returned "with a bunch of papers" showed
them to Jackson and said, "I have enough for all of you"
whereupon Jackson yelled , "You're fired." Jackson told
Tanner to return Respondent 's keys and property, which
he did; she then ordered him from the premises. As he
was leaving , Tanner told Jackson he would report her to
the city.
Ferguson also testified that there was "filth and mess"
running on the grounds from the sewers in several
places, that the condition persisted up to her termination,
and that she had complained to management concerning
it. She further testified that she had never talked to
Tanner about the sewers and that Tanner had not talked
to her about the sewers . There was no evidence present-
ed by the General Counsel that Tanner had discussed the
problems with the sewers with any other employees, nor
that other employees had discussed it with Tanner or
among themselves . Claverie, who had been employed by
another apartment complex at the time of the hearing,
testified that when she arrived at work the morning of
23 February, Tanner was sitting at a table in the office.
The other employees approached her and told her
Tanner wanted them to sign papers, and she inquired
whether they had signed anything . They replied that
they had not and she said , "Well, good, don't sign any-
thing ." At that point, Tanner told her he did not think
the employees made enough money. Claverie reported
that:
Carl [Tanner], we discussed your salary , and you
said everything was fine . . . . And that's when he
told me that he had reported us to the Baton Rouge
City Parish inspectors, or whatever , and that they
were scheduled to come out , he said they should
have been here by now, which would mean they
were supposed to show up on our property around
8 a.m. or around 9 a.m. That we had improper
sewer drainage , or whatever, system.
1380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
And I said "Carl [Tanner], you're going to get into
trouble. Why did you do this? I can't believe you
are doing it, you know, why not talk to us about it
first, you know?"
Claverie testified further that she called Property Manag-
er Linda Jackson and informed her that Tanner had re-
ported Respondent to the 'City Parish and then told
Tanner, "Carl, you're going to lose your job." She testi-
fied further that when she told Tanner he would lose his
job, she was referring to,Tanner's "disrupting the em-
ployees, and also upsetting us by calling the outside men,
the City Parish on us." Claverie'testified that when Jack-
son arrived, she called an attorney and informed him that
Tanner had reported Respondent "to the city inspectors,
and he's also here with a petition without-you know,
asking prior warning." Jackson asked the attorney how
she could terminate Tanner, and Jackson then directed
Claverie to prepare a termination form for Tanner. Jack-
son then summoned Tanner and terminated him. Claverie
testified further that at the time of her initial conversa-
tion with Tanner, he
talked like real, real strict, like his mind was already
made up, just that, here like a list, you have this-and
this and this, and there's going to be a large fine be-
cause you all are going to be in a lot of trouble, and
I said, "well, what can we do about it?" .. .
and he said, "well, it's too late; I've already report-
ed it and someone 's on their way out."
Candice (Vaughn) Berry testified that Tanner had ap-
proached Jackson and told her that he had called the
city inspectors because "a lot of things that were not up
to code as far as the plumbing and electrical goes, and
that he had called the city inspectors out."
Jackson testified that when she went to the office after
receiving Claverie's telephone call concerning Tanner,
she told the employees to go to work. Tanner refused
and told her he was waiting for the city inspectors to
arrive. When she asked Tanner, "What do you feel is
wrong?" he replied that Respondent was in violation of
city codes and mentioned drainage, the sewer, and elec-
trical problems. Tanner repeated he was not going to
work but was waiting for the city inspector to arrive and
told her the employees were underpaid and that "I do
intend to unionize you." She testified that she decided to
terminate Tanner for his refusal to go to work, his issu-
ance of threats concerning -the inspections, his manner in
doing so, "screaming stuff at me about violations and
city codes" and telling her to "speak pretty" and "I have
you on tape." She then left and telephoned Respondent's
attorney who advised her to discharge Tanner for
"threatened extortion" on the basis of his "threatening
accusations." She then returned and discharged Tanner
for "threatened extortion." In my original decision, I
credited the testimony of Claverie, Berry, and Jackson
over that of Tanner and Ferguson concerning the
manner in which Tanner had approached Claverie,
Berry, and Jackson and what had occurred, including
specifically Tanner's statements to Claverie and Jackson
concerning his having reported alleged plumbing code
violations to city of Baton Rouge authorities. I perceive
no reason to change'that finding. I found Jackson's and
Claverie's versions of the incidents to be credible, par-
ticularly as bolstered by Berry whom I found to have
been essentially a bystander in this incident.
B. Analysis
Under the test set out by the Board in Meyers Indus-
tries, supra, I conclude that Tanner did not engage in
concerted activity within, the Meyers' definition as the
evidence clearly demonstrates that he acted solely on his
own in telling Respondent 's management that he had
contacted city authorities to report the alleged code vio-
lations and to report that Respondent was in violation of
these codes because of improper drainage of its sewer
lines. It is undisputed that Tanner acted on his own in
this regard, and because he and other employees had not
even discussed it among themselves , he clearly was not
acting on the authority of the other employees in raising
the complaints with management.
As noted above, I credited the version of Respondent's
witnesses of the events that occurred on the date con-
cerning Tanner 's actions and statements . In reviewing
these actions and statements, I conclude that these, ac-
tions and statements in telling Respondent 's representa-
tives that he had reported its alleged plumbing code vio-
lations to city authorities were not protected under the
Act as they do not meet the definition of concerted ac-,
tivity set out in the Meyers' case. I also find that, his ac-
tions and statements in telling Respondent's management
that he had already reported code violations to city au-
thorities, rather than initially bringing these complaints
to the attention of Respondent 's management , were in-
consistent with his position as Respondent's maintenance
man and its interests . Under these circumstances, I find
that Respondent had a reasonable basis for discharging
Tanner for his actions in reporting code violations to
governmental authorities.
I have carefully reviewed the record in this case and
find no basis for changing any portion of my finding that
Tanner's union activities were a motivating factor in Re-
spondent 's decision to discharge Tanner . I, thus, con-
clude that the General Counsel made a prima facie case
that Tanner's union activities were a motivating factor in
Respondent's decision to discharge Tanner. However, as
found above, I conclude that Respondent was also moti-
vated to discharge Tanner because of his actions in re-
porting plumbing code violations to governmental au-
thorities. I further conclude that Respondent would have
discharged Tanner because of his activities in reporting
these violations even in the absence of his union activi-
ties. Thus, I find that Respondent has rebutted the Gen-
eral Counsel's prima facie case and that Respondent did
not violate Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by its dis-
charge of Tanner. Wright Line, supra.
II. JACKSON 'S REMARKS TO LEMOINE FOLLOWING
HER DISCHARGE OF TANNER
A. Facts
In my initial decision, I credited the testimony of em-
ployee Lemoine that following the discharge of Tanner,
CENTRE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
Jackson asked him whether he had signed the petition on
behalf of the Union that was assertedly being circulated
by Tanner prior to his discharge, and Lemoine replied in
the affirmative as a joke„ although he had not done so.
Jackson told him, "You better not have signed it." Le-
moine also explained, "You know, but she was a friend."
Jackson admitted that this had occurred but contended it
was a joke between herself and Lemoine.
B. Analysis
I have reviewed this incident in light of the Board's
recent decision in Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176
(1984), and perceive no basis for changing my original
decision in this regard that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) by Jackson's interrogation of Lemoine. I find that
this statement, in view of all the circumstances of this
case, was inherently coercive notwithstanding Lemoine's
joking approach to the interrogation which was then
picked up by Jackson as a joke. The message was none-
theless clear that Respondent would not tolerate a union
organizational campaign and that the employees (in this
instance Lemoine) had better not sign a petition on
behalf of a union. Coming as it did on the heels of the
discharge of Tanner, in part because of his activities in
attempting to organize a union, I find that in view of all
the circumstances of this case, the interrogation was vio-
latit'e of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, applying the standard
set in Rossmore, and that Respondent thus violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act by its interrogation of Lemoine
concerning his union activities.
- III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
UPON COMMERCE
1381
The unfair labor practice of Respondent, as found
herein in connection with Respondent's operations as
found in section I of my original decision in this case,
has a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade,
traffic, and commerce among the several States and
tends to lead to disputes burdening and obstructing the
free flow of commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Centre Property Management is an em-
ployer within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. Local 103 of the United Federation of Independent
Unions is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) or 8(a)(3)
of the Act by its discharge of Carl Westley Tanner.
4. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
its interrogation of Gerard Paul Lemoine by its supervi-
sor and agent Linda K. Jackson concerning Lemoine's
union activities and her issuance of a threat to Lemoine
concerning his engagement in union activities.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practice affects commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall be order it to cease and desist
therefrom and to post the appropriate notice.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]