Golden Mango Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 14, 2001

336 N.L.R.B. 128 (N.L.R.B. 2001)

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.
Golden Mango Corporation and Local 342–50, United
Food and Commercial Workers, AFL–CIO.
Cases 29–CA–24219, 29–CA–24247, and 29–CA–
24336
December 14, 2001
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN HURTGEN AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND WALSH
On charges and an amended charge filed by the Union
on April 30, May 15, and July 12, 2001, the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a
consolidated complaint on July 18, 2001, against Golden
Mango Corporation, the Respondent, alleging that it has
violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the National La­
bor Relations Act. Although properly served copies of
the charges and complaint, the Respondent failed to file
an answer.
On October 10, 2001, the General Counsel filed a Mo­
tion for Summary Judgment with the Board. On October
12, 2001, the Board issued an order transferring the pro­
ceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why
the motion should not be granted. The Respondent filed
no response. The allegations in the motion are therefore
undisputed.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
Sections 102.20 and 102.21 of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations provide that the allegations in the complaint
shall be deemed admitted if an answer is not filed within
14 days from service of the complaint, unless good cause
is shown. In addition, the consolidated complaint af­
firmatively notes that unless an answer is filed within 14
days of service, all the allegations in the complaint will
be considered admitted. Further, the undisputed allega­
tions in the Motion for Summary Judgment disclose that
the Region, by letter dated September 6, 2001, notified
the Respondent that unless an answer were received by
September 12, 2001, a Motion for Summary Judgment
would be filed.
In the absence of good cause being shown for the fail­
ure to file a timely answer, we grant the General Coun­
sel’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent, a domestic cor­
poration, with an office and place of business at 81–05
Rockaway Boulevard, Ozone Park, New York, has been
engaged in the operation of a supermarket at that location
(the Ozone Park facility). During the 12-month period
preceding issuance of the consolidated complaint, in the
course and conduct of its business operations, the Re­
spondent derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000,
and has purchased and received at its Ozone Park facility
goods, products and materials valued in excess of $5000
directly from points located outside the State of New
York. We find that the Respondent is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act and that the Union is a labor or­
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
At all material times, the following individuals have
been agents of the Respondent, acting on its behalf:
Mr. (FNU) Kim Co-Owner
Nancy Kim Co-Owner
At all material times, the following individuals have
held the positions set forth opposite their respective
names, and have been agents of the Respondent, acting
on its behalf, and supervisors within the meaning of Sec­
tion 2(11) of the Act:
Alfredo DiFilipo Store Manager
Mr. Bruce (LNU) Store Manager
On or about January 18, 2001, the Union commenced a
campaign to organize a unit of the Respondent’s meat
department employees employed at its Ozone Park facil­
ity. On April 12, 2001, an election was held in that unit,
and on April 26, 2001, the Region issued a certification
of the Union as the exclusive collective–bargaining rep­
resentative of the unit employees.
On or about January 18, 2001, the Respondent, by Mr.
Kim and Alfredo DiFilipo, at its Ozone Park facility:
(a) interrogated employees as to why they had signed
authorization cards for the Union; and
(b) directed employees that they should inform the Un­
ion that they no longer wished to be represented by it.
On or about January 19, 2001, the Respondent, by Al­
fredo DiFilipo, at its Ozone Park facility:
(a) warned and directed employees not to sign authori­
zation cards on behalf of the Union;
(b) interrogated employees as to whether they had
signed authorization cards on behalf of the Union;
(c) threatened employees with a reduction in their
work hours if they signed authorization cards for the Un­
ion or gave support or assistance to it or engaged in other
protected concerted activities; and
(d) threatened employees with discharge, plant closure,
layoff, and a reduction in hours because they gave sup-
port or assistance to the Union, or engaged in other pro­
tected concerted activities.
On or about January 19, 2001, the Respondent, by Mr.
Bruce (LNU), at its Ozone Park facility, threatened em­
ployees with discharge and deportation if they gave as­
sistance or support to the Union or engaged in other pro­
tected concerted activities.
336 NLRB No. 128
2 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On or about January 19, 2001, the Respondent, by Al­
fredo DiFilipo, at its Ozone Park facility, directed em­
ployees not to sign authorization cards for the Union and
threatened them with discharge should they do so.
On or about January 21, 2001, the Respondent, by Al­
fredo DiFilipo, at its Ozone Park facility, threatened to
reduce the working hours of its employees because of
their membership in, sympathy for, and activities on be-
half of the Union and because they engaged in other pro­
tected concerted activities.
On a date presently unknown in late February 2001,
the Respondent, by Alfredo DiFilipo and Mr. Bruce
(LNU), at its Ozone Park facility, threatened its employ­
ees with a reduction in their work hours because of their
membership in, sympathy for, and activities on behalf of
the Union and because they engaged in other protected
concerted activities.
On or about April 11, 2001, the Respondent, by either
Mr. Kim or Nancy Kim and Alfredo DiFilipo, at its
Ozone Park facility:
(a) directed its employees to vote no in the election
held on April 12, 2001; and
(b) threatened employees that if the Union were suc­
cessful in the election, the benefits of certain meat de­
partment employees would be reduced.
On several occasions in March and April 2001, the
dates of which are presently unknown, the Respondent,
by Alfredo DiFilipo, at its Ozone Park facility, informed
its employees that the reason they could no longer con-
verse at their work stations was due to their membership
in, sympathy for, and activities on behalf of the Union,
and because they engaged in other protected concerted
activities.
On or about April 11, 2001, the Respondent, by Mr.
Kim, at its Ozone Park facility, promised employees that
the Respondent would assist them in the payment of cer­
tain medical expenses if they voted against the Union in
the election.
On or about April 11, 2001, the Respondent, by Nancy
Kim, Bruce (LNU), and Alfredo DiFilipo, at its Ozone
Park facility, threatened employees that their work hours
would be further reduced if they voted for the Union in
the election and because of their membership in, symp a-
thy for, and activities on behalf of the Union and because
they engaged in other protected concerted activities.
On or about February 26 or March 1, 2001, and on
various dates unknown thereafter, the Respondent re­
duced the working hours of the following meat depart­
ment employees:
Jose Aviles
Alexander Campis
Catalina Coronado
Rosa Flores
Thackur Neebar
Mihanel Pabon
Raul Villalta
On or about March 1, 2001, the Respondent eliminated
the use of radios at the work stations for meat department
employee Mihanel Pabon and another meat department
employee whose name is presently unknown.
On about March 1, 2001, the Respondent directed
meat department employees to discontinue their practice
of speaking to one another at their work stations.
On or about April 12, 2001, the Respondent eliminated
the benefit of providing a free lunch on Sunday to the
following meat department employees:
Jose Aviles
Alexander Campis
Catalina Coronado
Rosa Flores
Thackur Neebar
Mihanel Pabon
Raul Villalta
Since on or about April 27, 2001, the Respondent as-
signed the more onerous and less desirable job of clean­
ing the bathrooms at its Ozone Park facility to meat de­
partment employees Rosa Flores, Raul Villalta and Mi­
hanel Pabon. The Respondent engaged in this conduct
because these employees joined and assisted the Union
and engaged in other protected concerted activities and to
discourage employees from engaging in these activities.
Since on or about May 31, 2001, the Respondent fur­
ther reduced the working hours of its employee, Mihanel
Pabon. The Respondent engaged in this conduct because
Pabon was named in a charge filed under the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By the acts and conduct described above, the Respon­
dent has been interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has been engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
By reducing employees’ working hours, eliminating
the use of radios at employees’ work stations, directing
employees to discontinue speaking to one another at their
work stations, eliminating the benefit of a free lunch on
Sundays, and assigning more onerous jobs to employees
because of their protected concerted activities, the Re­
spondent has also been discriminating in regard to the
hire or tenure or terms or conditions of employment of its
employees, thereby discouraging membership in a labor
organization in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act.
By further reducing the working hours of employee
Mihanel Pabon because he was named in a charge filed
under the Act, the Respondent has further been discrimi­
nating against employees for filing charges or giving
testimony under the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
and (4) of the Act.
GOLDEN MANGO CORP. 3
The unfair labor practices of the Respondent affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer­
tain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifically, having
found that the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) by the reduction of working hours and the elimi­
nation of a free Sunday lunch for meat department em­
ployees Jose Aviles, Alexander Campis, Catalina Coro­
nado, Rosa Flores, Thackur Neebar, Mihanel Pabon, and
Raul Villalta, and has also violated Section 8(a)(4) by
further reducing the work hours of meat department em­
ployee Mihanel Pabon, we shall order the Respondent to
make those employees whole for any loss of earnings
and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimina­
tion against them. Backpay shall be computed in accor­
dance with Ogle Protection Service, 183 NLRB 682
(1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971), with interest
as prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283
NLRB 1173 (1987). The Respondent shall also be re­
quired to remove from its files any reference to the ac­
tions taken against Jose Aviles, Alexander Campis, Cata­
lina Coronado, Rosa Flores, Thackur Neebar, Mihanel
Pabon, and Raul Villalta, and to notify them in writing
that this has been done.
Further, the Respondent shall be required to rescind
the changes made in working conditions with respect to
(1) the reduction of working hours of meat department
employees Jose Aviles, Alexander Campis, Catalina
Coronado, Rosa Flores, Thackur Neebar, Mihanel Pabon,
and Raul Villalta; (2) the elimination of the use of radios
at work stations for meat department employee Mihanel
Pabon and another meat department employee whose
name is presently unknown; (3) the discontinuation of
the meat department employees’ practice of speaking to
one another at their work stations; (4) the elimination of
free lunch on Sundays for the following meat department
employees: Jose Aviles, Alexander Campis, Catalina
Coronado, Rosa Flores, Thackur Neebar, Mihanel Pabon,
and Raul Villalta; and (5) the assignment of the job of
cleaning the bathrooms at the Ozone Park facility to meat
department employees Rosa Flores, Raul Villalta and
Mihanel Pabon.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Golden Mango Corporation, Ozone Park,
New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Interrogating employees as to why or whether they
signed authorization cards for the Union.
(b) Directing employees that they should inform the
Union that they no longer wish to be represented by it.
(c) Warning and directing employees not to sign au­
thorization cards on behalf of the Union.
(d) Threatening employees with a reduction in their
work hours if they sign authorization cards for the Union,
give support or assistance to it, or engage in other pro­
tected concerted activity, or because of their membership
in, sympathy for, and activities on behalf of the Union.
(e) Threatening employees with discharge, plant clo­
sure, or layoff because they give support or assistance to
the Union, or engage in other protected concerted activi­
ties.
(f) Threatening employees with discharge and deporta­
tion if they give assistance or support to the Union or
engage in other protected concerted activities.
(g) Directing its employees not to sign authorization
cards for the Union and threatening them with discharge
if they do so.
(h) Directing employees to vote no in a union election.
(i) Threatening employees that if the Union were suc­
cessful in the election, the benefits of employees would
be reduced.
(j) Informing employees that the reason they could no
longer converse at their work stations was due to their
membership in, sympathy for, or activities on behalf of
the Union, and because they engaged in other protected
concerted activities.
(k) Promising employees that the Respondent would
assist them in the payment of certain medical expenses if
they voted against the Union in the election.
(l) Threatening employees that their work hours would
be further reduced if they voted for the Union in the elec­
tion, and because of their membership in, symp athy for,
and activities on behalf of the Union and because they
engaged in other protected concerted activities.
(m) Reducing the working hours of meat department
employees because of their membership in, sympathy
for, and activities on behalf of the Union.
(n) Eliminating the use of radios at the work stations of
meat department employees because of their membership
in, sympathy for, and activities on behalf of the Union.
(o) Directing meat department employees to discon­
tinue their practice of speaking to one another at their
work stations because of their membership in, sympathy
for, and activities on behalf of the Union.
(p) Eliminating the benefit of providing a free lunch on
Sunday to meat department employees because of their
membership in, sympathy for, and activities on behalf of
the Union.
(q) Assigning the more onerous and less desirable job
of cleaning the bathrooms at its Ozone Park facility to
meat department employees because of their membership
in, sympathy for, and activities on behalf of the Union.
(r ) Further reducing the working hours of employees
because they are named in a charge filed under the Act.
4 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(s) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exe rcise 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) Make employees Jose Aviles, Alexander Campis,
Catalina Coronado, Rosa Flores, Thackur Neebar, Mi­
hanel Pabon, and Raul Villalta whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the
Respondent’s discrimination against them, with interest,
as set forth in the remedy section of this decision.
(b) Rescind the changes made in working conditions
with respect to (1) the reduction of working hours of
meat department employees Jose Aviles, Alexander
Campis, Catalina Coronado, Rosa Flores, Thackur Nee-
bar, Mihanel Pabon, and Raul Villalta; (2) the elimina­
tion of the use of radios at work stations for meat de­
partment employee Mihanel Pabon and another meat
department employee whose name is presently unknown;
(3) the discontinuation of the meat department employ­
ees’ practice of speaking to one another at their work
stations; (4) the elimination of free lunch on Sundays for
the following meat department employees: Jose Aviles,
Alexander Campis, Catalina Coronado, Rosa Flores,
Thackur Neebar, Mihanel Pabon, and Raul Villalta; and
(5) the assignment of the job of cleaning the bathrooms
at the Ozone Park facility to meat department employees
Rosa Flores, Raul Villalta, and Mihanel Pabon.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from its files all references to the unlawful actions taken
against Jose Aviles, Alexander Campis, Catalina Coro­
nado, Rosa Flores, Thackur Neebar, Mihanel Pabon, and
Raul Villalta, and within 3 days thereafter notify the em­
ployees in writing that this has been done and that its
unlawful actions will not be used against them in any
way.
(d) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for
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 re-
cords 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.
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Ozone Park, New York, copies of the at­
tached notice marked “Appendix.”1 Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
29, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
1 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 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.”
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent imme­
diately on receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days
in conspicuous places including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the no­
tices are not altered, defaced or covered by any other
material. 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 Re­
spondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a
copy of the notice to all current employees and former
employees employed by the Respondent at any time
since January 18, 2001.
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re­
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. December 14, 2001
Peter J. Hurtgen, Chairman
Wilma B. Liebman, Member
Dennis P. Walsh, Member
(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
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or­
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees as to why or
whether they signed authorization cards for the Union.
WE WILL NOT direct employees that they should inform
the Union that they no longer wish to be represented by
it.
WE WILL NOT warn and direct employees not to sign
authorization cards on behalf of the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with a reduction in
their work hours if they sign authorization cards for the
Union, give support or assistance to it, or engage in other
protected concerted activity, or because of their member-
ship in, sympathy for, and activities on behalf of the Un­
ion.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge, plant
closure, or layoff because they give support or assistance
GOLDEN MANGO CORP. 5
to the Union, or engage in other protected concerted ac­
tivities.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge or
deportation if they give assistance or support to the Un­
ion or engage in other protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT direct our employees not to sign authori­
zation cards for the Union and threaten them with dis­
charge if they do so.
WE WILL NOT direct our employees to vote no in a un­
ion election.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees that if the Union is
successful in an election, the benefits of employees will
be reduced.
WE WILL NOT inform our employees the reason they
can no longer converse at their work stations is due to
their membership in, sympathy for, or activities on behalf
of the Union or because they engage in other protected
concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT promise employees that we will assist
them in the payment of certain medical expenses if they
vote against the Union in an election.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that their work
hours will be further reduced if they vote for the Union
in an election, and because of their membership in, sym­
pathy for, and activities on behalf of the Union and be-
cause they engage in other protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT reduce the working hours of meat de­
partment employees because of their membership in,
sympathy for, and activities on behalf of the Union.
WE WILL NOT eliminate the use of radios at the work
stations of meat department employees because of their
membership in, sympathy for, and activities on behalf of
the Union.
WE WILL NOT direct meat department employees to
discontinue their practice of speaking to one another at
their work stations because of their membership in, sym­
pathy for, and activities on behalf of the Union.
WE WILL NOT eliminate the benefit of providing a free
lunch on Sunday to the meat department employees be-
cause of their membership in, sympathy for, and activi­
ties on behalf of the Union.
WE WILL NOT assign the more onerous and less desir­
able job of cleaning the bathrooms at our Ozone Park
facility to meat department employees because of their
membership in, sympathy for, and activities on behalf of
the Union.
WE WILL NOT further reduce the working hours of an
employee because he was named in a charge filed under
the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL make employees Jose Aviles, Alexander
Campis, Catalina Coronado, Rosa Flores, Thackur Nee-
bar, Mihanel Pabon, and Raul Villalta whole for any loss
of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of our
discrimination against them, with interest.
WE WILL rescind the changes made in working condi­
tions with respect to (1) the reduction of working hours
of employees Jose Aviles, Alexander Campis, Catalina
Coronado, Rosa Flores, Thackur Neebar, Mihanel Pabon,
and Raul Villalta; (2) the elimination of the use of radios
at work stations for employee Mihanel Pabon and an-
other employee whose name is presently unknown; (3)
the discontinuation of employees’ practice of speaking to
one another at their work stations; (4) the elimination of
free lunch on Sundays for the following employees: Jose
Aviles, Alexander Campis, Catalina Coronado, Rosa
Flores, Thackur Neebar, Mihanel Pabon, and Raul
Villalta; and (5) the assignment of the job of cleaning the
bathrooms at our Ozone Park facility to employees Rosa
Flores, Raul Villalta and Mihanel Pabon.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, remove from our files all references to our unlaw­
ful discrimination against Jose Aviles, Alexander
Campis, Catalina Coronado, Rosa Flores, Thackur Nee-
bar, Mihanel Pabon, and Raul Villalta, and WE WILL,
within 3 days thereafter, notify them in writing that this
has been done and that our unlawful actions will not be
used against them in any way.
GOLDEN MANGO CORPORATION