Halle Enterprises, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 31, 2000

330 N.L.R.B. 1157 (N.L.R.B. 2000)

HALLE ENTERPRISES 1157
Halle Enterprises, Inc. and Comar Management, Inc.,
and Fidel Perez and Roberto Velorio Medina
and Francisco and Flores Nestor Cotton and
Juan Manuel Vasquez and Jose A. Alfaro and
Jose Garcia and Francisco Gatica and Jose
Climes and Donald Urbina and Israel Flores.
Cases 5–CA–27676, 5–CA–27677, 5–CA–27678,
5–CA–27679, 5–CA–27680, 5–CA–27681, 5–CA–
27682, 5–CA–27683, 5–CA–27684, 5–CA–27685,
and 5–CA–27686
March 31, 2000
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN TRUESDALE AND MEMBERS FOX AND
HURTGEN
On July 23, 1999, Administrative Law Judge Bruce D.
Rosenstein issued the attached decision. The General
Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief and the
Respondent filed an answering brief, cross-exceptions,
and a supporting brief. The Charging Party filed excep-
tions and a supporting 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 conclusions as
modified below and to adopt the recommended Order as
modified.2
We disagree with the judge’s finding that the offer of
reinstatement made by Respondent’s president, Warren
Halle, to four senior maintenance employees3 who had
been unlawfully discharged cut off any entitlement the
employees had to reinstatement and backpay as of No-
vember 7, 1997.4 Rather, we find that Halle’s offer was
superceded when Respondent’s property manager,
Wayne Ellis, subsequently placed conditions on that of-
fer. The relevant facts, more fully set forth in the judge’s
decision, are as follows.

1 The General Counsel and the Charging Parties have excepted to
some of the judge’s credibility findings. The Board’s established pol-
icy is not to overrule an administrative law judge’s credibility resolu-
tions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence con-
vinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91
NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have care-
fully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings.
The General Counsel has excepted to the judge’s statement that
some of the discriminatees were offered free apartments or reduced
rents in return for being on call during evening hours. The record
shows that the Respondent utilized rent abatement as a supplementary
compensation method to pay employees for their work.
2 We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order to include a
paragraph, inadvertently omitted by the judge, providing that the Re-
spondent cease and desist from discriminatorily discharging employees.
Because we disagree with the judge’s finding that employees Fidel
Perez, Roberto Velorio Medina, Francisco Flores, and Israel Flores
refused unconditional offers to return to work, we would not toll their
backpay as of November 7, 1997, and therefore disavow the judge’s
statement in par. 3 of the remedy section of his decision.
3 The Respondent does not contend that the remaining seven em-
ployees were offered unconditional reinstatement at any time.
4 All dates are in 1997 unless otherwise indicated.
The Respondent is in the business of building homes
and managing apartment complexes. At the Willow-
brook Apartments, it employed the 11 Charging Parties
as maintenance technicians primarily engaged in apart-
ment repairs and renovations including plumbing and
electrical work. On the morning of November 4, the
employees complained to Resident Manager Michelle
Summers-Davis regarding their wages, hours, and work-
ing conditions and demanded wage increases, uniforms,
safety equipment, tools, and better working conditions.
Summers-Davis told the employees that Ellis was the
only person who could respond to their requests. Shortly
thereafter, Ellis arrived at the apartment complex, told
the employees that they were all fired, and ordered them
to leave the premises.5 For the next 2 weeks, a number
of employees picketed outside the Respondent’s facility.
The employees carried signs that notified the public that
they had been fired by the Respondent for protesting for
better working conditions and higher wages.
Meanwhile, on November 5, Ellis told the employees
that they could have their jobs back if they filled out new
applications. When the employees learned that the job
offers did not include their present benefits and seniority,
they refused to return to work. On or around November
7, as found by the judge, Halle and Vice President Joe
Dodson met with discharged employee Israel Flores in
Halle’s office. Halle informed Flores, as spokesperson
for the employees, that he wanted him and the three other
senior technicians6 to come back to work without any
conditions. When the four senior technicians returned to
work, however, on or about November 10, Ellis informed
them that they could retain their present benefits and
seniority only if they signed a waiver form.7 When the
four employees refused to sign the waiver, Ellis told
them they could not return to work.
Relying on Halle’s credited testimony, the judge found
that the Respondent made specific, unequivocal, and
unconditional offers of reinstatement to the four senior
maintenance employees and that their failure to accept
this offer tolled any backpay obligation as of November
7. The judge also found, however, that when the four
5 No party excepted to the judge’s finding that the discharges of the
11 employees violated Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act.
6 The four senior technicians were Fidel Perez, Roberto Valerio Me-
dina, Francisco Flores, and Israel Flores.
7 The document stated: “I,________, understand that in the future,
returning my keys, pager and radio, and failing to perform my duties
upon request will be an indication that I have resigned my position with
COMAR Management. I understand that COMAR management has
decided to reinstate me and will continue my benefits as though I had
not left due to the short length of time between my leaving and my
being reinstated. I understand that participation in legal action against
COMAR Management or any of its agents and the picketing of Wil-
lowbrook Apartments while in the employment of COMAR Manage-
ment is not necessary and will not be tolerated. I have read and agree
with the above statements.”
330 NLRB No. 163
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1158
employees attempted to return to their jobs pursuant to
Halle’s offer of reinstatement, Ellis asked them to sign
the waiver as a condition of reinstatement, and that
Dodson also made a conditional offer of reinstatement to
the employees sometime during the week of November
10.8
It is well settled that the burden is on the Respondent
to communicate to its employees an offer that is firm,
clear, and unconditional.9 Ellis’ statement that they could
not return to work and retain their benefits and seniority
unless they signed the waiver was not an unconditional
offer that would toll the backpay of the four senior tech-
nicians.10 Therefore we find, contrary to the judge, that
the entitlement of Perez, Medina, Francisco Flores, and
Israel Flores to reinstatement and backpay was not cut
off on November 7.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent, Halle
Enterprises, Inc. and Comar Management, Inc., Silver
Spring, Maryland, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns shall take the action set forth in the Order as
modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(a) and
reletter the following paragraph.
“(a) Discriminatorily discharging employees for con-
certedly complaining about their wages, hours, and
working conditions by demanding wage increases, uni-
forms, safety equipment, and tools.”
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the admin-
istrative law judge.

8 The judge found at fn. 7 of his decision that although Dodson’s of-
fer contained restrictions, Halle’s offer did not, and since Halle was the
Respondent’s president, his offer would supercede the subsequent
statement of a lower-level management official. Although he does not
so state, the judge’s reasoning also would seem to apply to Ellis’ insis-
tence that the employees sign the waiver. We do not agree with the
judge’s reasoning. Even though Halle’s offer was unconditional it
occurred approximately 3 days earlier than the Dodson and Ellis offers.
The discriminatees had every reason to conclude that Ellis and Dodson
were stating the full terms of the Respondent’s offer at the time the
employees reported for reinstatement (including any amendments that
might have been made to Halle’s offer since it was originally made)
and that the Respondent’s offer was the conditional offer made by Ellis.
9 L. A. Water Treatment, 263 NLRB 244, 246 (1982); Don Pizzolato,
Inc., 249 NLRB 953, 956 (1980).
10 Tony Roma’s Restaurant, 325 NLRB 851 (1998).
Member Hurtgen dissented in Tony Roma’s and he adheres to that
dissent. In that case, Member Hurtgen disagreed with the majority’s
conclusion that an employer failed to make a valid, unconditional offer
of reinstatement. By contrast, in the instant case, the Respondent’s
offer of November 7 was clearly valid at the time. Thus, the issue is
whether the subsequent events of November 10 rendered the offer
conditional. Member Hurtgen agrees with his colleagues that it did so.
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 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 representatives
of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protection
To choose not to engage in any of these protected
concerted activities.

WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate
against any of you for concertedly complaining about
wages, hours, and working conditions.
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, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, offer Fidel Perez, Roberto Velorio Medina, Fran-
cisco Flores, Nestor Cotton, Juan Manuel Vazquez, Jose
A. Alfaro, Jose Garcia, Francisco Gatica, Jose Climes,
Donald Urbina, and Israel Flores full reinstatement to
their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to sub-
stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority or any other rights or privileges previously en-
joyed.
WE WILL make the above-noted employees whole for
any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from
their discharge, less any net interim earnings, plus inter-
est.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, remove from our files any reference to the unlaw-
ful discharges of the above-noted employees, and WE
WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify each of them in
writing that this has been done and that the discharges
will not be used against them in any way.

HALLE ENTERPRISES, INC. AND COMAR
MANAGEMENT, INC.

Gabriel A. Terrasa, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Fred S. Sommer, Esq., of Rockville, Maryland, for the Respon-
dent-Employer.
Carla M. Mathers, Esq., of College Park, Maryland, for the
Charging Parties.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BRUCE D. ROSENSTEIN, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was tried before me in Washington, D.C., on May 10 and 11,
1999, pursuant to a complaint (the complaint) and notice of
HALLE ENTERPRISES 1159
hearing issued by the Regional Director for Region 5 of the
National Labor Relations Board (the Board) on August 27,
1998. The complaint, based upon original charges filed on
April 28, 1998, by the 11 individuals, alleges that Halle Enter-
prises, Inc. and Comar Management, Inc., single employer (the
Respondent or Halle), has engaged in certain violations of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). The
Respondent filed a timely answer to the complaint denying that
it had committed any violations of the Act.
Issues
The complaint alleges that the Respondent discharged 11
employees because of their protected concerted activities on
November 4, 1997.1
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed
by the General Counsel,2 the Charging Parties,3 and the Re-
spondent, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent is a corporation engaged in the business of
building homes and managing residential apartment housing,
with an office and place of business in Silver Spring, Maryland,
where it annually purchased and received at its facility goods
valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the
State of Maryland. The Respondent admits and I find that it is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The Willowbrook Apartments in suburban Maryland is the
situs where the 11 Charging Parties worked as maintenance
technicians primarily engaged in apartment repairs and renova-
tions including plumbing and electrical work. Some of the
individuals were provided free apartments or reduced rents in
return for being on call during the evening hours to make emer-
gency repairs to the more than 500 units in the apartment com-
plex. Four of the employees,4 worked in excess of 8 years for
the Respondent. Israel Flores served as the employees’ leads-
man or group leader and is also able to converse in English.
At all material times, the key supervisory personnel in this
case are Michelle Summers-Davis, resident manager, Wayne
Ellis, property manager, Joe Dodson, vice president of property
management, and Warren Halle, president.
Extensive testimony is contained in the record regarding the
deplorable working conditions that the 11 employees were
forced to endure. Indeed, on numerous occasions prior to No-
vember 4, the employees complained to Summers-Davis and

1 All dates are in 1997 unless otherwise indicated.
2 I reverse my prior ruling and grant the General Counsel’s renewed
motion to admit GC Exh. 2 into evidence for the reasons stated in the
posthearing brief.
3 As part of the remedy in this case, the Charging Parties seek rea-
sonable attorneys’ fees. In this regard, I am not persuaded that the
repeated displays of bad-faith or capricious conduct prolonging the
litigation as the Board found in Lake Holiday Manor, 325 NLRB 469
(1998), are present in the subject case. Accordingly, unlike the award
of attorneys’ fees in that case, I deny the present request.
4 Fidel Perez, Roberto Velorio Medina, Francisco Flores, and Israel
Flores.
Ellis regarding the lack of satisfactory safety equipment includ-
ing gloves, boots, and protective masks. Additionally, the em-
ployees had previously expressed to Summers-Davis and Ellis
dissatisfaction with their pay and demanded higher wages.
Davis, on several occasions, explained to the employees that
her supervisors were looking into the matter and she was opti-
mistic that something positive might happen in their October 30
paychecks.
B. Facts
On the morning of November 4, since their wages were not
increased, all 11 employees went to Davis’ office to talk about
a number of problems that the employees perceived had not
been adequately addressed by the Respondent. With Israel
Flores serving as spokesperson, as he was the most proficient in
the English language and Summers-Davis did not speak Span-
ish, the employees concertedly complained regarding their
wages, hours, and working conditions by demanding wage
increases, uniforms, safety equipment, tools, and better working
conditions. Davis replied that she had tried to help the men but
she could not do anything more for them and that Wayne was
the only one who could give the employees satisfaction. Flores
asked Summers-Davis if they could speak to Wayne Ellis and
Summers-Davis told the group that she would try to telephone
him. The employees left Davis’ office and returned to work.
Later that morning, Summers-Davis called the employees over
the radio and requested that they come to her office. Most of
the employees went directly to Summers-Davis’ office and
were told by Summers-Davis that Wayne said who ever wanted
to work could, otherwise, we could go home. Flores told Davis
that the employees wanted to meet with Ellis, and Summers-
Davis said she would try to reach him. All of the employees
placed their keys, pagers, and radios on Summers-Davis’ desk
and told her they would wait for Ellis so they could talk with
him. The employees left the office and went downstairs to the
maintenance shop where they ordered a pizza to await Ellis’
arrival. Summers-Davis reached Ellis by telephone and ap-
prised him that the employees had turned in their equipment
and had just left her office. Ellis arrived at the apartment com-
plex around noon and attempted to reach Flores but was unsuc-
cessful. He obtained the keys to the maintenance shop and
proceeded downstairs. Upon opening the door, he observed the
employees eating a pizza and said, “All of you are fired, get out
of here.” The employees left the maintenance shop and pro-
ceeded to the front entrance of the building housing the offices.
Ellis observed the employees congregating in front of the of-
fice, proceeded outside, and told the employees that if they did
not leave he would call the police. Shortly thereafter, the police
arrived. Flores told the police that most of the employees lived
in the apartment complex and could not leave. One of the po-
licemen suggested that the employees purchase some materials
to make signs that could be displayed by the employees in front
of the apartment complex as long as no one blocked the en-
trance into the development. This suggestion was followed and
for the next 2 weeks a number of employees remained outside
the complex carrying signs that notified the public that they had
been fired by Respondent for protesting better working condi-
tions and demanding higher wages.
On November 5, Ellis called the employees into the office
and said they could have their jobs back if they filled out new
applications. When the employees learned that the job offers
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1160
did not include their present benefits and seniority, they all
refused to return to work with reduced rights and benefits.
On November 6, Respondent sent employees Roberto Velo-
rio Medina and Jose Alfaro identical letters regarding their
apartments.5
On or about November 10, Ellis and Dodson contacted Flo-
res and Medina and apprised the two employees that they
wanted them along with the two other most senior maintenance
technicians, Fidel Perez and Francisco Flores, to return to work.
All four employees went to the office that day and were in-
formed by Ellis that they could return to work immediately and
retain their present benefits and seniority if they signed a piece
of paper.6
C. Analysis
In considering whether an employer is a single employer, the
Board utilizes the following criteria:

[1] Common management
[2] Centralized control of labor relations
[3] Interrelation of operations; and
[4] Common ownership

Rebel Coal Co., 279 NLRB 141, 143 (1986); Truck & Dock
Services, 272 NLRB 592 fn. 2 (1984); Radio Union Local 1264
v. Broadcast Service of Mobile, 380 U.S. 255, 256 (1965). The
determination of whether two nominally distinct entities are
under all of the circumstances a single-integrated enterprise is
made on a case-by-case basis, Blumenfeld Theatres Circuit, 240
NLRB 206, 215 (1979), enfd. 626 F.2d 865 (9th Cir. 1980).
In the instant case there is common management, centralized
control of labor relations, interrelation of operations, and com-
mon ownership. In this regard, the evidence establishes that
Warren Halle is the owner and president of both entities and is
totally responsible for all personnel decisions and overall day-
to-day operations. Likewise, Respondent has common officers,
directors, management and supervision, and share the same
premises and facilities with a common telephone number. The
Respondent has provided services for and made sales to each
other and have interchanged personnel.
I thus conclude, based on the totality of the evidence, that
Halle Enterprises, Inc. and Comar Management, Inc. are single
employers.
The General Counsel alleges in paragraph 4 of the complaint
that the Respondent discharged and refused to reinstate the 11

5 The letters state in pertinent part:
As per conditions of the Amendment of Lease abatement you
signed (Mar. 26, 1997), upon your resignation with COMAR
Management, Inc., this agreement was null and void. Effective
immediately, you are no longer required to reside on the property.
This is your 30-day notice to vacate the premises. [G.C. Exhs. 3
and 8.]
6 The document stated:
I,__________, understand that in the future, returning my
keys, pager and radio, and failing to perform my duties upon re-
quest will be an indication that I have resigned my position with
COMAR Management. I understand that COMAR management
has decided to reinstate me and will continue my benefits as
though I had not left due to the short length of time between my
leaving and my being reinstated. I understand that participation in
legal action against COMAR Management or any of it’s agents
and the picketing of Willowbrook Apartments while in the em-
ployment of COMAR Management is not necessary and will not
be tolerated. I have read and agree with the above statements.
(GC Exh. 3.)
employees because they concertedly complained about their
working conditions and demanded higher wages. Likewise,
the General Counsel asserts that on November 6 Respondent
sent notices to some employees changing the terms of their
rental or evicting them from their apartments at the Willow-
brook complex. The Respondent, while admitting that the em-
ployees concertedly complained about their working condi-
tions, takes the position that the 11 maintenance technicians
resigned or quit their employment when their concerns were not
immediately addressed. It steadfastly denies that it fired the 11
employees and, therefore, opines that the Act was not violated
and no backpay is due and owing to the employees.
The Board has held that Section 7 protects “concerted activi-
ties for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection.” No union need be involved, any activity by a
single employee may be protected if it seeks to initiate, induce,
or prepare for group action. Prill (Meyers Industries) v. NLRB,
835 F.2d 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1987), cert. denied 487 U.S. 1205
(1988). This protection specifically includes discussions about
wages between two or more employees. Trayco of S.C., 297
NLRB 630, 633 (1990). Here, all 11 maintenance technicians
complained to Summers-Davis about their working conditions
including demanding higher wages and better safety equipment.
Indeed, Respondent admits this in paragraph 4(a) of its answer.
Contrary to the position advanced by the Respondent, I find
that all 11 employees were discharged by Ellis on November 4
for engaging in protected concerted activities when they jointly
complained about their working conditions including demand-
ing wage increases, uniforms, safety equipment, and tools.
I reach this conclusion for the following reasons. First,
Davis testified that the 11 employees never told her, while they
were in her office on November 4 that they quit or resigned
their positions. Second, I fully credit the testimony of Flores,
Alfaro, and Medina that Ellis told all of the employees while
they were in the maintenance shop on November 4, that they
were fired. Ellis did not testify during the hearing and, there-
fore, the employee’s testimony is unrebutted. Third, I find that
it would be highly unlikely that if the employees had resigned
or quit their positions they would have remained on the prem-
ises and ordered a pizza. Rather, I find as testified to by the
three employees, they informed Summers-Davis that they
would wait for Ellis to arrive at the apartment complex so they
could speak with him about their concerns.
The Respondent further argues that even if it is found that it
fired the 11 maintenance technicians for protesting about work-
ing conditions, any backpay due and owing to senior techni-
cians Fidel Perez, Roberto Velorio Medina, Francisco Flores,
and Israel Flores was tolled when those individuals rejected
unconditional offers of reinstatement. In this regard, Dodson
testified that during the week of November 10, while the em-
ployees were demonstrating in front of the apartment complex,
he personally informed Flores and Medina that the four senior
maintenance technicians could return to work without any con-
ditions. The only thing they would not receive is any money
for the time they were away from their jobs. Additionally,
Dodson told Flores and Medina that the four senior employees
did not have to sign a form or piece of paper as a condition of
reemployment. Halle testified that he and Dodson had a meet-
ing with Flores in his office around November 7. He informed
Flores, as the supervisor and spokesperson for the maintenance
employees, that he wanted the four senior technicians to come
back to work without any conditions and they did not have to
HALLE ENTERPRISES 1161
sign a form limiting their rights in any way.7 Although Flores
testified, he did not address the fact that both Dodson and Halle
independently offered him and the three other senior mainte-
nance technicians the opportunity to return to work without any
conditions. Rather, in response to a question from the General
Counsel, “[D]id the company ever approach you after this time
(after his conversation with Dodson during the week of No-
vember 10, and the refusal to sign GC Exh. 3), to offer you
employment,” Flores responded, “[N]o, not after that time.” At
no time did Flores testify in his direct testimony about his meet-
ing with Halle on or about November 7 (which preceded his
conversation with Dodson and the refusal to sign GC Exh. 3).
Moreover, neither the General Counsel nor the Charging Party
recalled Flores as a rebuttal witness to address Halle’s testi-
mony about his meeting with Flores in his office. Under these
circumstances, I fully credit the forthright and direct testimony
of Halle concerning his offer to Flores on behalf of the four
senior maintenance technicians that they could come back to
work without conditions or having to sign a form. Since the
four employees did not accept this offer, any entitlement for
reinstatement or backpay is cut off on November 7.8 With
respect to the seven other maintenance technicians listed in the
complaint, I find that the Respondent did not make legitimate
offers of reinstatement. In this regard, while the Respondent
offered these employees’ reemployment on November 5, it
came with restrictions. Thus, an offer of reemployment without
the emoluments of present benefits and seniority is not a lawful
offer that would shield the Respondent from its obligation to
fully reinstate these seven employees to their former positions.
See Spitzer Akron, Inc., 219 NLRB 20, 24 (1975), enfd. 540
F.2d 841 (6th Cir. 1976), cert. denied 429 U.S. 1040 (1977).9
Based on the forgoing, I find that Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act by discharging 11 maintenance techni-
cians on November 4 when they concertedly complained about
their wages, hours, and working conditions by demanding wage
increases, uniforms, safety equipment, and tools.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by terminating 11 main-
tenance technicians on November 4, 1997, when they concert-
edly complained about their wages, hours, and working condi-
tions by demanding wage increases, uniforms, safety equip-
ment, and tools.
3. The unfair labor practices described above affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.

7 Although Dodson’s offer of reinstatement still contains restrictions
(the only thing that they would not receive is any money for the time
that they were away from the job), I conclude that Halle’s offer of
reinstatement was specific, unequivocal, and unconditional. In this
regard, as the president of Respondent, such an offer takes precedence
over a subsequent statement of a lower-level management official.
8 While it could be argued that the issue of reinstatement and back-
pay for the four senior maintenance technicians is more appropriate for
the compliance stage of the case, I am of the opinion that the Board’s
finite resources should not be used for this purpose if the record is clear
that the four employees waived their right to reinstatement.
9 Contrary to the General Counsel’s argument in posthearing brief
that the offer of reinstatement made by Halle was invalid because it was
not made to all 11 discriminatees, the cited case holds otherwise. See
also Brenal Electric, 271 NLRB 1557 (1984).
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
The Respondent, having discriminatorily discharged em-
ployees, must offer them reinstatement and make them whole
for any loss of earnings and other benefits including their right
to live in a rental apartment at either reduced rent or rent free,
computed on a quarterly basis from date of discharge to date of
proper offer of reinstatement, less any net interim earnings, as
prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus
interest as computed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283
NLRB 1173 (1987).
With respect to the offers of reinstatement involving em-
ployees Fidel Perez, Roberto Velorio Medina, Francisco Flores,
and Israel Flores, reference to the decision is dispositive for the
reinstatement date and backpay entitlement for these employ-
ees.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended10
ORDER
The Respondent, Halle Enterprises, Inc. and Comar Man-
agement, Inc., Silver Spring, Maryland, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) 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 Fidel
Perez, Roberto Velorio Medina, Francisco Flores, Nestor Cot-
ton, Juan Manuel Vazquez, Jose A. Alfaro, Jose Garcia, Fran-
cisco Gatica, Jose Climes, Donald Urbina, and Israel Flores full
reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer
exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or any other rights or privileges previously en-
joyed.
(b) Make the above-noted employees whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimi-
nation against them, in the manner set forth in the remedy sec-
tion of the decision.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from
its files any reference to the unlawful discharges, and within 3
days thereafter, notify the employees in writing that this has
been done and that the discharges will not be used against them
in any way.
(d) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, make avail-
able to the Board or its agents for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records, including
an electronic copy of the records if stored in electronic form,
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
10 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
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1162
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cility in Silver Spring, Maryland, copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix”11 in English and Spanish. Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
5, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized represen-
tative, 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 cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re-

11 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.”
spondent to ensure that the notices 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 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 November 4,
1997.
(f) 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.