Dreamland Bedding

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 8, 1975

221 N.L.R.B. 1082 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

1082 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Celotto Inc. d /b/a Dreamland Bedding and Furniture
Union Local 500, Upholsterers ' International
Union, AFL-CIO. Case 21-CA-13495
December 8, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
PENELLO
On August 26, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
Russell L. Stevens issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel filed a brief in answer to Respondent's
exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding'to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Respondent Celotto Inc. d/b/a
Dreamland Bedding, Carson, California, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order.
I The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge . It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F .2d 362 (CA 3, 1951) We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RUSSELL L. STEVENS, Administrative Law Judge: This
matter was heard at Los Angeles, California, on July 8 and
9, 1975.1 The complaint, issued May 9, is based upon a
charge filed March 27 by Furniture Union Local 500,
Upholsterers' International Union, AFL-CIO, hereinafter
referred to as the Union. The complaint alleges that
Celotto Inc. d/b/a Dreamland Bedding, hereinafter
referred to as Respondent, violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
i All dates herein are in 1975, unless stated to be otherwise
2 Chester (an agent), Weisling , Mernunguez, and Lozano are admitted
221 NLRB No. 179
of the National Labor Relations Act, hereinafter referred
to as the Act.
All parties were given full opportunity to participate, to
introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to argue orally. Briefs, which have been
carefully considered, were filed on behalf of Respondent
and the Charging Party. General Counsel waived the filing
of a brief.
Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the
witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is a California corporation engaged in the
manufacture and sale of box springs and mattresses at its
facility located in Carson, California. In the normal course
and conduct of its business operations, Respondent
annually sells and ships goods and materials valued in
excess of $50,000 to customers located outside the State of
California. I find that Respondent, is, and at all times
material herein has been, an employer engaged in
commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
U. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Furniture Union Local 500, Upholsterers' International
Union, AFL-CIO, is, and at all times material herein has
been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Background
Respondent manufactures box springs and mattresses,
and normally has a work force of approximately 100
employees. Ray Celotto is owner of Respondent; Dave
Chester is secretary of Respondent; Maynard Weisling is
plant superintendent; Larry Merminguez is foreman of the
inner spring department; and Arturo Lozano is foreman of
the woodshop.2
Union activity at Respondent's plant commenced
approximately in January, and union authorization cards
were circulated and signed by employees, including all nine
dischargees involved herein, in January, February, and
March.
On March 26, Respondent terminated nine employees
who contend they were discharged because of their union
activity. Respondent contends the nine were laid off
because of a decrease in business. The complaint also
alleges that, on March 26 and 27, Respondent interrogated,
threatened, advised, and created the impression of surveil-
lance of its employees concerning their.union activities;
Respondent denies all allegations.
On April 30, Respondent sent the nine employees
involved herein mailgram unconditional offers of reem-
by Respondent, and found, to be supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
DREAMLAND BEDDING
ployment with a reporting date of no later than May 7. All
of the nine reported to work in accordance with the offers
and were reemployed.
A. Alleged Discharge of Employees
Paragraph 6 ^ of the complaint alleges that, on or about
March 26, Respondent discharged the following employees
because of their union or other protected activity: Fausto
Cancino, Cesar Chapa, Rafael Carmona, Sinforino Diaz,
Rosendo Morales, Miguel Padilla, Olegario Salgado,
Rogelio Sanchez (Puga), and Juan Ramirez. (All herein-
after referred to by their last names.)
Cancino testified he has worked for Respondent since
1969, and was fired by Timothy Torres3 on March 26;
Torres said Cancino was fired because he signed a union
authorization card and distributed others. Cancino said he
did not talk with anyone in management about the Union
prior to March 26, and that he was told the day he was
fired "perhaps we will call you later."
Chapa testified he has worked for Respondent since
1971, and was fired on March 26 by Merminguez, who told
him he ". . . was definitely terminated because the owner
of the company had told him that David [Chester] had
seen me outside talking to the people." 4 Chapa said he did
not talk with anyone in management about the Union
prior to March 26, but that he had been active in talking
with other employees about the Union, and in distributing
union authorization cards.
Carmona testified he has worked for Respondent since
1969, and was fired by Lozano on March 26 about 10 a.m.
He said Lozano told him he was laid off because of lack of
work, but that Lozano told him about 11:30 a.m. that he
was fired because he "signed the union card." Carmona
said he signed a union card March 15, but did not discuss
the Union with anyone in management prior to March 26.
Diaz testified he has worked for Respondent since 1974
and was fired on March 26 by Lozano, who said the
discharge was because Diaz signed a union card.
Morales testified that he has worked for Respondent
since 1972, and was fired on March 26 by Torres, who said
.. there is no more work for you."
Padilla testified he has worked for Respondent since
1972 and was fired on March 26 by Merminguez, who said
the reason was that Padilla ". . . had been telling people to
sign for the union ." Padilla said he signed a union card in
January, distributed cards to five other employees, and
received back three signed cards.
Salgado testified that he has worked for Respondent
since 1973 and was fired on March 165 by Torres, who first
asked if Salgado wanted a union and then said that, if
Salgado ". . had signed any papers for the union, that I
didn't have work anymore." Salgado said he signed a
union card on March 15.
Sanchez testified he has worked for Respondent since
October 1974, and that he was fired on March 26 by
3 Admitted by Respondent, and found, to be a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act.
4 "The people" were not identified, nor did General Counsel elicit
further testimony on this point However, in view of other testimony and the
circumstances , it is clear, and, found, that the reference is to other
employees
1083
Merminguez, who told him he was discharged "because the
owner of the company realized that you are the agitator
and you are the one that distributed the cards to the other
employees in the company ." Sanchez said he signed a
union card in January , and distributed approximately 50
cards to other employees . He said he believed no one in
management knew he distributed the cards.
Ramirez testified that he has worked for Respondent
since 1968 and was discharged on March 26 by Lozano,
after Lozano asked if he had signed a card for the Union
and Ramirez replied, "Yes." Ramirez said Weisling came
by his work place shortly afterwards and "he told me that
there was no more work , to leave." Ramirez said he signed
a union card on March 26 , and previously had distributed
and received back 12 signed cards.
Respondent's principal defense is that the employees
involved herein were not fired , but, rather , were laid off
because of a business decline.
Chester testified as follows: Members of management
hold regular meetings each Saturday morning, and during
the meeting of Saturday prior to March 26 it was
determined that some employees would have to be laid off
because of a steady decline of business since January .6
Some names, including those involved herein, were
mentioned as possibilities for layoff, but final determina-
tion of numbers and employees was left to the discretion of
Weisling. Seniority was not a factor; only individual ability
was considered. There have been layoffs in the past, the
last having been in December 1974, when about 25
employees were laid off. The first time Chester knew
anything about union activity at Respondent's premises
was on March 26, during the termination incident involved
herein. Weisling called Chester on the intercom at that
time and said Ramirez refused to leave the premises after
the layoff because ". . . the union was coming and he
didn't have to leave." A crowd had begun to gather and
because he believed violence might erupt Chester called the
police . Chester denied telling anyone that Chapa was an
agitator , and he said he never talked with any employee, or
with Celotto, prior to March 26 about the Union.
Weisling testified that he attended the management
meeting on Saturday prior to March 26 , and that Celotto
then instructed him to lay off 10 or 12 employees because
of a decline in business. Weisling said he assumed the
layoffs should be made the following Monday but he
procrastinated, hoping business would increase and layoffs
could be avoided . On Wednesday, March 26, Celotto
walked through the plant and, upon learning that no
layoffs had been made , became upset and told Weislmg to
take care of the matter . Weislmg thereupon discussed the
subject with the various foremen , employees to be laid off
were agreed upon, and Weislmg directed the layoffs.
Employees were selected for layoff solely upon the basis of
ability and production . Carmona, Ramirez, and Diaz were
fired, however, because they refused to leave the plant after
they were laid off. Weisling said he knew nothing,about
5 Although General Counsel did not clarify the obvious discrepancy in
the dates, it is clear from all the testimony , and found , that Salgado was
discharged the same day as the others - on March 26 , rather than on
March 16
6 The only evidence of decline produced at hearing is that of an alleged
summary of sales (Resp . Exh. R:-1 )
1084 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
union activity at the plant until Ramirez refused to leave
after being laid off, and said something about the Union.
Merminguez testified that he first learned of union
activity at the plant, after the layoffs when he talked with
Weisling. He said he never questioned any employees
about the Union.? He said he and Weisling talked about
possible layoffs on Tuesday or early Wednesday March 26,
and that he suggested who should be laid off. Merminguez
testified that he did not fire any employee;,he laid them off
because of lack of work, and told them to come back for
their checks on Friday and inquire then about returning to
work.
Lozano testified that he and Weisling discussed employ-
ees to be laid off, and that he suggested that Ramirez,
Carmona, and Diaz be selected because of their work
records. Ramirez and Diaz were laid off by Lozano
because of lack of work, but later were fired by Weisling
because they refused to leave the plant. Lozano said
Ramirez later was replaced by a more capable employee,
although he was recalled to work on May 7, as discussed
above .8 Lozano testified he did not know of any union
activity at the plant prior to March 26, and did not know
about Ramirez distributing union cards.
Analysis
Weisling acknowledged that he discharged Ramirez,
Diaz, and Carmona, but said the discharges occurred only
because the three refused to leave the plant; he said they
first were laid off. Respondent contends that all nine
employees were laid off on March 26, rather than having
been fired. However, that contention is not consistent with
the record.9 In the first place, the action was taken
summarily. This factor was explained by contending that
Weisling procrastinated from Monday until Wednesday,
but that delay does not resolve the issue, in view of
Respondent's allegation (Resp. Exh. 1) that business
declined steadily from December 1974 until March. In the
second place, it is acknowledged by Respondent that (at
least) some of the employees were paid for accrued
vacation time. While this factor is equivocal, it deserves an
explanation not found in the record, particularly if, as
Respondent implies, no more than a short layoff was
contemplated. Finally, police were called by Respondent
when some of the employees sought a confrontation about
the terminations. It is not reasonable to believe that a
layoff would precipitate' such serious events; it is reason-
able to believe that discharge of nine employees, without
any advance warning, would cause such a confrontation. It
is found that Respondent discharged the nine employees,
rather than laying them off.
Respondent contends that the employees were laid off
because of a business decline. The only evidence to support
that contention is contained in Respondent's Exhibit 1,
which is a handwritten sheet titled "Sales." It shows
nothing more than unexplained figures for the months
January 1974 through May 1975. If the figures are
7 Merminguez testified that he first heard about union cards being
distributed during the hearing herein. However, in his affidavit statement,
he said he first learned about the cards on the day of the layoffs, March 26
8 Allegedly because of new work in the plant.
9 The offers to employees, Resp. Exh 4, read "offer of re-employment "
accepted, arguendo, as accurate reflections of business
activity at Respondent's plant, a question still remains
since the low point of alleged sales was reached in
February, rather than March, and the figures increase each
month after February. The employees were discharged on
March 26. Further, the April 1975 figure is about the same
as that for January 1974 and 1975, A time lag between
production and sales is inevitable - April sales must
reflect March production. In any event, the very sketchy
and incomplete nature of the exhibit and absence of
supporting figures cast doubt upon its value. It is accorded
very tittle weight. Of interest in this connection is the fact
that replacements were hired for Ramirez and Chapa the
week following their discharge and, further, overtime work
was required after the discharges. Respondent's various
explanations of these two facts have been carefully
considered in arriving at the conclusions set forth below.
Those explanations are not credited. The contention that a
business decline was the reason for the discharges must be
weighed against the testimony and evidence indicating
otherwise. Even if Respondent's Exhibit 1 shows, and even
if it is accepted, arguendo, that Respondent experienced a
drop in business during a time relevant herein, evidence
and the testimony of nine witnesses support the employees'
contention that they were discharged because of their
interest in the Union.
The nine discharged employees had been working for
Respondent for various lengths of time, from about 5
months (Sanchez) to about 7 years (Ramirez). The nine
had worked for Respondent a total of approximately 32
years at time of their discharge. Yet, Respondent contends
the only reason the nine were selected for discharge from
among approximately 100 employees was their inferior
ability and production record. This contention simply is
not logical, particularly when it is seen, that Respondent
laid off about 25 people in December, and only two of the
employees involved herein were laid off at that time.'°
Respondent contends it had no notice of union activity
on the part of the nine discharged employees, prior to the
time of discharge. This contention is met by the testimony
of the nine relative to reasons given to them for their
discharge. Chester and Weishng were not convincing
witnesses, and the testimony of Mermmguez was weak and
unimpressive.
Based upon the appearance and demeanor of witnesses
on the stand, and upon discrepancies and inconsistencies
in the testimony of Chester and Weisling, the nine
discharged employees are credited. I'
It is found that Respondent discharged the nine
employees named above because of their union activity.
B. Alleged Interrogation by Torres
Paragraph 7 of the complaint alleges that, on or about
March 26 , Torres illegally interrogated employees.
10 Diaz and Carmona were laid off with others, for a period of2 weeks.
I' Respondent contends the Company was closely and sternly admims-
tered by its owner , Celotto, who directed the alleged layoff However,
Celotto was not called by Respondent as a witness
DREAMLAND BEDDING
Salgado testified that Torres talked with him about noon
on March 16, and "he asked me if I was in agreement to
enter the Union or if I wanted`Union."
Torres was not called to testify, and Salgado's testimony
was not contradicted. Salgado is credited.
It is found that this allegation of the complaint' is proved.
C. Alleged Threat by Torres
Paragraph 8 of the complaint alleges that, on or about
March 26, Torres threatened employees with discharge if
they supported the Union.
Salgado testified that, about noon on March 16, Torres
told him ". . . if I had signed any papers for the Union,
that I didn't have work anymore."
Torres was not called to testify and Salgado's credited
testimony was not contradicted.
It is found that this allegation of the complaint is proved.
D. Alleged Advice by Torres
Paragraph 9 of the complaint alleges that, on or about
March 26, Torres advised employees that they were being
discharged for engaging in union activities.
Cancino testified that Torres told him on March 26 ".. .
there is no more work for you . . . because you signed the
card and you also distributed Union cards."
Cancino's testimony was not challenged by Respondent
and Tones did not testify. Cancino is credited.
It is found that this allegation of the complaint is proved.
E. Alleged Interrogation by Merminguez
Paragraph 10 of the complaint alleges that, on or about
March 26 and 27, Merminguez_ illegally interrogated
employees.
No testimony or evidence was introduced relative to this
charge.
It is found that this allegation of the complaint is not
proved.
F. Alleged Threat by Merminguez
Paragraph 11 of the complaint alleges that, on or about
March 26, Merminguez threatened employees with dis-
charge if they supported the Union.
No testimony or evidence was introduced in support of
this charge.
It is found that this allegation of the complaint is not
proved.
G. Alleged Impression of Surveillance Created by
Merminguez
Paragraph 12 of the complaint alleges that, on or about
March 26, Merminguez created the impression that
Respondent was engaged in surveillance of employees'
union activities.
Sanchez testified that, when he was fired, Merminguez
told him he was fired "because the owner of the company
12 It is clear from the context from which this quotation was taken, and it
is found, that "they" refers to management of Respondent.
13 Admitted by Respondent, and found, to be a supervisor within the
1085
realized that you are the agitator and you are the one that
distributed the cards to the other employees in the
company."
Chapa testified that, when he received his vacation check
on March 27, Merminguez ". . . told-me that they couldn't
give me the job back again and that they 12-had asked him
if anybody else had signed for the union."
Merminguez denied that he discussed union activities
with any employee. Sanchez and Chapa are credited.
It is found that the two foregoing statements clearly
create the impression of surveillance. The fact that the
statement was made to Chapa the day after he was
discharged does not remove the taint of illegality. The
statements were part of a pattern, and clearly Chapa was in
close contact with other employees and former employees.
Chesterfield Chrome Co., 203 NLRB 36 (1973).
It is found that this allegation of the complaint is proved.
H. Alleged Advice by Merminguez
Paragraph 13 of the complaint alleges that, on or about
March 26, Merminguez advised employees that they were
being discharged for engaging in union activities.
Sanchez, Chapa, and Padilla testified they were told by
Merminguez that they were being discharged because of
their- union activity. Merminguez denied that he ever
discussed union activities with any employee. Sanchez,
Chapa, and Padilla are credited.
It is found that this allegation of the complaint is proved.
1. Alleged Interrogation by Merminguez
Paragraph 14 of the complaint alleges that, on or about
March 26, Merminguez illegally interrogated employees.
No testimony or evidence was introduced in support' of
this charge. It is found that this allegation of the complaint
is not proved.
J. Alleged Interrogation by Dominguez
Paragraph 15 of the complaint alleges that, on or about
March 26, Dominguez 13 illegally interrogated employees
about their union activity.
No testimony or evidence was introduced in support of
this charge. It is found that this allegation of the complaint
is not proved.
K. Alleged Threat by Dominguez
Paragraph 16 of the complaint alleges that, on or about
March 26, Dominguez threatened employees with dis-
charge if they supported the Union;
Chapa testified that, on March 26, Dominguez told a
group of employees, "I told the company owner two weeks
ago about the union, the matter about the union."
Padilla testified that Dominguez told him and other
employees 14 that Respondent's owner had instructed him
" to run out everyone that has signed for the union,"
but that he (Dominguez) had not fired anyone because all
the employees had signed.
meaning of the Act.
14 The date was not clearly established, but it appears , and is found, to
be March 26
1086 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Dominguez, did not testify. Chapa and Padilla are
credited.
It is found that neither of the above statements
constitutes a threat, and that this allegation of the
complaint is not proved.
However, the statements clearly convey the impression
of surveillance, in that they create the conclusion that
belonging to a union and continued employment, by
Respondent are not compatible and that the owner,
through his supervisors, kept account of the employees and
their union activity. Padre Dodge, 205 NLRB 252 (1973);
Stephens Manufacturing Co., Incorporated, 196 NLRB 47
(1972).
It is found that the-foregoing statements constitute a
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
L. , Allegation of Interrogation by Lozano
Paragraph 17 of the complaint alleges that, on or about
March 26, Lozano illegally interrogated employees.
Diaz and Ramirez testified that, on March 26, Lozano
asked them if they had signed union cards.
Lozano was not questioned about this allegation,
although he stated the first time he heard about the Union
was when Ramirez said he would not stop working because
the union representatives would come to the plant about
noon.
Diaz and Ramirez are credited. It is found that this
allegation of the complaint is proved.
M. Alleged Advice by Lozano
Paragraph 18 of the complaint alleges that, on or about
March 26, Lozano told employees they were being
discharged for engaging in union activities.
Diaz testified that Lozano asked him if he had signed a
union card and Diaz said he had; Lozano then told Diaz to
stop working at 11:30. Ramirez testified that Lozano asked
him if he had signed a union card; Ramirez said he had;
Lozano left, returned in about 15 minutes, and told
Ramirez to stop work at 11:30.
Carmona testified he was told by Lozano that he was
fired, that he asked the reason, and that Lozano replied
"because you signed the union card."
Lozano gave a different version of the matter, which
contradicted that of Diaz, Ramirez, and Carmona.
Based upon all the circumstances of the case, including
the credited versions of all the discharges, the testimony of
Diaz, Ramirez, and Carmona is more nearly consistent
with the record than the testimony of Lozano. Diaz,
Ramirez, and Carmona are credited.
It is found that this allegation of the complaint is proved.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
Respondent's activities set forth in section III, above,
occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent
described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V. THE, REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and
desist therefrom, and to take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that Respondent unlawfully dis-
charged or laid off Fausto Cancmo, Cesar Chapa, Rafael
Carmona, Sinforino Diaz, Rosendo Morales, Miguel
Padilla, Olegario Salgado, Rogelio Sanchez (Puga), and
Juan Ramirez. I will, therefore, recommend that Respon-
dent offer said individuals their former jobs or, if those jobs
no longer exist, substantially equivalent jobs, without
prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges,
and make them whole for any loss of earnings suffered by
reason of the discrimination against them, by payment to
them of sums of money equal to that which they normally
would have earned, absent the discrimination, less net
earnings during such period, with backpay computed on a
quarterly basis in the manner established in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest at
the rate of 6 percent per annum, as set forth in Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). It will be
further recommended that Respondent preserve and make
available to the Board, upon request,` all payroll records,
social security payment ' records, timecards,- personnel
records and reports, and all other records necessary and
useful to determine the amounts of backpay due and the
rights of reinstatement under the terms of these recommen-
dations.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and
upon the entire record, I hereby make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Celotto Inc. d/b/a Dreamland Bedding is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Furniture Union Local 500, Upholsterers' Interna-
tional Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By coercively interrogating, threatening, advising,
and creating the impression of surveillance of employees
concerning their union activities, Respondent interfered
with, restrained, and coerced said employees in the exercise
of their rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By discharging Fausto Cancino, Cesar Chapa,
Rafael Carmona, Sinforino Diaz, Rosendo Morales,
Miguel Padilla, Olegario Salgado, Rogelio Sanchez (Puga),
and Juan Ramirez, Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act.
5. Respondent did not, through alleged conduct,
violate Section 8(a)(l) of the Act by interrogating or
threatening employees through its supervisors, as alleged in
paragraphs 10, 11, 14, 15, and 16 of the complaint.
6. By the action described in paragraph 4, above, and
by the independent 8(axl) violations described in para-
graph 3, above, Respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced, and is interfering with, restraining, and
DREAMLAND BEDDING 1087
coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
them in Section 7 of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the above findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
the entire record , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act,
I hereby issue the following recommended:
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
16 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States -.Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board " shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
ORDER 15
Respondent, Celotto Inc. d/b/a Dreamland Bedding,
Carson, California, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating, threatening, advising, and
creating - the impression of surveillance of employees
concerning union activity.
(b) Discharging, laying of,' or otherwise discriminating
against any employee in regard to hire or tenure of
employment or any term or'condition of employment'in
order to discourage union membership or activities.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Fausto Cancinb, Cesar Chapa, Rafael Carmo-
na, Sinforino Diaz, Rosendo Morales, Miguel Padilla,
Olegario Salgado, Rogelio Sanchez (Puga), and Juan
Ramirez immediate and full reinstatement to their former
jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or
other rights and- privileges, and make them whole for their
loss of earnings in the manner set forth in the section of
this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and make available to the Board or its
agents all payroll and other records, as set forth in the
section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Post at their offices in Carson, California, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 16 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 21, after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that paragraphs 10, 11, 14, 15,
and 16 of the complaint be dismissed in their entirety.
is In the event no exceptions ,are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had a chance to give
evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has
ordered us to post this notice. We intend to carry out the
Order of the Board and abide by the following:
The Act gives all employees these rights:
To organize themselves
To form, join, or help unions
To bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing
To act together for collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection
To refuse to do any or all of these things.
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce
employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed to
them by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act,
in violation of Section 8(a)(l),of the Act, by interrogat-
ing, threatening, advising, or creating the impression of
surveillance of our employees relative to union or other
activity protected by the Act.
WE WILL NOT discharge, lay off, or otherwise
discriminate against any employee because he or she
has joined, helped, or supported a union.
WE WILL NOT in any other' manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer Fausto Cancino, Cesar Chapa, Rafael
Carmona, Sinforino Diaz, Rosendo Morales, Miguel
Padilla, Olegario Salgado, Rogelio Sanchez (Puga), and
Juan Ramirez full reinstatement to their formerjobs or,
if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their former rights and
privileges, and'wE wu,L make them whole for any loss
of earnings they may have suffered ' with _6-percent
interest per annum.
CELO'rrO INC. D/R/A
DREAMLAND BEDDING