International Medication Systems, LTD

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 5, 1979

244 N.L.R.B. 861 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

INTI RNATIONAL MEDICATION SYSTEMS. LTD.
International Medication Systems, l,td. and California
Teamsters Public Professional and Medical Em-
ployees, Local Union No. 911, International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America. Cases 21 CA 16588. 21
CA 16678. and 21 CA 16925
September 5. 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING ANDI) MEMBERS JENKINS
AND MURPHY
On April 5. 1979, Administrative Law Judge James
M. Kennedy issued the attached Decision in this pro-
ceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and
a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed lim-
ited cross-exceptions, which Respondent answered.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' 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 Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or-
ders that the Respondent, International Medication
Systems, Ltd., South El Monte, California, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order, except that
the attached notice is substituted for that of the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge.
' We find it unnecessary to pass upon the General Counsel's exceptions
that statements by Supervisors Gonzales and Contreras. that Lavendera had
been fired for supporting the Union. violated Sec 8(a I) since the violation
would be cumulative and would not affect the remedy or Order.
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 parties had the opportu-
nity to present evidence, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board has found that we violated the National
Labor Relations Act and we have been ordered to
post this notice.
The National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
gives all employees the following rights:
To organize themselves
To form, join, or support unions
To bargain as a group through a representa-
tive thev choose
To act together fior collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection
To refrain from any or all such activity ex-
cept to the extent that the employees' bargain-
ing representative and employer have a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement which imposes a
lawful requirement that employees become
union members.
WE Will. NOT create the impression that our
employees' union activities are under surveil-
lance.
WE WILL NOT interogate our employees about
their union activities or whether they signed au-
thorization cards on behalf of California Team-
sters Public, Professional and Medical Employ-
ees, Local Union No. 911, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, or any other
union.
WE WIL.L NOT recruit employees to report on
the union activities of other employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of
their jobs (whether by discharge, forced quits, or
plant closure) to discourage them from seeking
union representation.
WE WILL NOT tell employees that union repre-
sentation is futile.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discrimi-
nate against employees because they engage in
union activity.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exer-
cise of the rights set forth above which are guar-
anteed by the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL immediately offer Frances Laven-
dera and Lucila Guzman full reinstatement to
their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist,
to substantially equivalent jobs, without preju-
dice to their seniority or any other rights or privi-
leges previously enjoyed, and WE WILL make
them whole for any loss of earnings they may
have suffered as a result of our discrimination
against them, including interest thereon.
INTERNATIONAL MEDICATION SYSTEMS. LTD.
244 NLRB No. 136
861
I)(DECISIONS OF NATIONAI. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I)E(CISION
SIAII!MINI (If 1111 ('ASI
JAMIS M. KNNI!)Y. Administrative L.aw Judge: This
case as heard before me on December 11 13. 1978. in
los Angeles. (California,. pursuant to a second consolidated
amended complaint issued on September 15 by the Re-
gional l)irector for Region 21. and which was further
amended at the hearing. The complaint is based on charges
filed by (alifrnia Teamsters Public. Professional and
Medical Employees, Local Union No. 911, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America (herein called the Union). The com-
plaint alleges that International Medication Systems, Itd.
(herein called Respondent) has engaged in and is engaging
in certain violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended.
Issues
The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act when it discharged two of its
employees. Frances Lavendera and Lucila Guzman. These
two employees appear to have been the most visible union
adherents during the Union's organizational campaign
which began in late March 1978. Respondent defends, ar-
guing Lavendera was laid off because her job was no longer
needed and averring Guzman was discharged because she
improperly overstayed a leave of absence. The complaint
further alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)() of
the Act in several ways by threatening, restraining, and co-
ercing employees from engaging in union activities by: cre-
ating the impression of surveillance of those activities,
threatening employees with discharge or other reprisals,
threatening them with more onerous working conditions.
interrogating employees regarding their union activities,
sympathies, and desires, and threatening to close the plant.
Further, evidence was adduced at the hearing tending to
show that Respondent attempted to recruit employees to
report on the union activities of other employees and also
made statements tending to demonstrate the futility of
union representation. Respondent adduced evidence tend-
ing to deny some of these allegations, but not all.
In analyzing this dispute, I have made credibility deter-
minations, including drawing adverse inferences where nec-
essary due to Respondent's failure to comply with a sub-
pena.? As will be seen, however, for the most part it was
Hereinafter all dates are 1978, unless otherwise noted.
2 Al the outset of the proceeding the General Counsel demanded produc-
tion of various documents pursuant to a previously issued subpena. While
Respondent complied in many respects, it refused to release evidence relat-
ing to a defense accurately anticipated by the General Counsel. In that
circumstance I permitted the General Counsel to adduce evidence on those
topics by secondary methods and barred Respondent from rebutting it. In
this connection see Bannon Mills, Inc.. 146 NLRB 61 1, fn. 4, 633 34 (1964):
American Art Industries, Inc., 166 NLRB 943 (1967). enfd. in pertinent part.
415 F.2d 1223 (5Sh Cir. 1969); and N.L.R.B. v. C. H. Sprague & Son Co., 428
F.2d 938 (Ist Cir. 1970). With regard to the permissibility of drawing adverse
inferences against Respondent in this situation. see Interstate Circuit Inc.. et
al. v. Lnited States. 306 U.S. 208 (1939); Paudler v. Paudler, 185 F.2d 901 at
903 (5th Cir. 1950). cert. denied 341 U.S. 920 (1951); International Union.
United Automobile. Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer-
ica (UA W v. N. L.R B.. 459 F.2d 1329 at 1335 ().C. Cir. 1972): and Mona-
an Ford Corporation of Flushing, 173 NLRB 2064 (1969).
unnecessary to draw adverse inferences as the evidence was
generally sufficient to prove the allegations without drawing
them.
All parties were given full opportunity to participate. to
introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to argue orally. Both the General C(ounsel
and Respondent filed post-hearing briefs which have been
carefully considered.
Upon the entire record of the case,. I make the following:
FINDININ(S 1 FACI
I. I IL. t SINESS ()I RSPO)NI)IN I
Respondent admits it is a Delaware corporation engaged
in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals at a plant in South
El Monte. California. It admits that in the normal course
and conduct of its business it annually purchases and re-
ceives goods and products valued in excess of $50,000 di-
rectly from suppliers located outside California. Accord-
ingly, Respondent admits, and I find, that it is engaged in
commerce and in a business affecting commerce wtihin the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ()R(ANIZAIION INV()I.VI)
Respondent admits, and I find, that at all material times
the Union has been a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Ill. i111F A(iL) NFAIR LABOR PRA('It( LS
A. Bckground
At material times Respondent's South El Monte facility
consisted of 12 buildings and it employed between 200 and
250 individuals. Its chief executive officer is Robert Ogle,
who is both chairman of its board of directors and corpo-
rate president. The vice president of operations is William
Hinderer. Each of the various buildings houses one or more
departments. In general, each department head (who usu-
ally is also in charge of the entire building) wore a gold
coat. The department head was assisted by employees who
wore blue coats whose duties, with possibly one exception,
are those of lead persons. The lead persons directed produc-
tion personnel who wore either white or green coats.
I. Francis Lavendera
Frances Lavendera, at the time of her layoff on April 7.
was employed in building 4. She was originally hired in
1976 to work as a packager in building 6. Shortly thereafter
she was transferred to building 4 where she worked in the
chemistry laboratory with some of the glassware and also
The General Counsel filed a motion to correct the transcript. Respondent
fied a partial opposition thereto. Having considered the matter. it is appar-
ent the alleged errors in the transcript do not significantly change the mean-
ing of the testimony. They are obvious typographical or grammatical errors
which are readily apparent. I deem it unnecessary to make those corrections
and hereby deny the motion. including those matters which Respondent does
not oppose.
862
INTERNATIONAl. MEI)ICATION SYSI' FMS, I.TD).
helped make some medias for the microhlologN department.
After a short time she was returned to building 6 as a pack-
ager. Later, she was again transferred to the chemistry labo-
ratory. ltimately she became a quality assurance (QA) in-
spector. She completed a QA on-the-job training program
in mid-1977. As a QA inspector she was under the direct
supervision of Dr. David Chai.' the QA director. who as-
signed her to inspect various production areas. She per-
formed these duties for several months. According to
lavendera. sometime in mid- to late 1977. Chai advised her
a layoff was upcoming and, because he wanted her to he
available as a QA inspector, he was going to temporarily
again assign her to the chemistry laboratory. She recalled
him saying that as soon as business volume resumed she
would be returned to her QA inspector duties. Only once,
during an FDA inspection in September 1977. while she
was assigned to that lab was she asked to momentarily re-
sume QA duties.
Her tasks in the chemistry laboratory principally con-
sisted of menial labor, including cutting paper, mailing.
washing glassware, and cleaning the animal cages. In early
1978 the then chief of the microbiology department, Sue
Gaynor, left Respondent's employment. At that point C'hai
told Lavendera she was to be transferred to the microbiol-
ogy laboratory located in building 2 to fill a vacancy caused
by a promotion in replacing Gaynor. Chai explained to her
that if this transfer did not work out, he would see that she
was transferred to another department, as Respondent did
not wish to let her go. She was not sent to the microbiology
department but remained in building 4 where she was as-
signed to make medias to be utilized by the microbiology
department for its testing of product sterility. She was occa-
sionally called upon to wash glassware and to assist in pre-
paring animals for tests.
During the second week in March 1978 she decided to
seek union representation and telephoned the Union.
Shortly thereafter she met with Union Organizer Dick Si-
erra. Sierra gave her approximately 200 authorization cards
to be distributed among Respondent's employees. She
signed a card and immediately began soliciting employees'
signatures on Respondent's premises. She was quite visible
during this process as she handed out cards in company
driveways and lunchrooms as well as the adjacent street. In
addition she took cards to employees' homes. She also solic-
ited the assistance of another employee. Lucila Guzman.
who worked in building 6. One day while the two were
having lunch in the lunchroom at Building 5, Lavendera
gave Guzman approximately 20 cards. Guzman obtained
signatures on all of them and returned them to Lavendera,
asking for additional cards which Lavendera gave her. Guz-
man then solicited an additional 10 to 15 signatures.'
Shortly before giving Guzman her first packet of cards,
Lavendera had had a conversation with Yvonne Ruiz, a
gold coat who supervised building 6, the packaging depart-
ment. Ruiz was Guzman's immediate supervisor. Laven-
dera had gone to building 6 and saw Ruiz in the hallway.
Chai holds a Ph.D In chemistry.
Lavendera also gave Mana Garcia. a "white room" employee from
building 7 approximately 20 cards for employee signature slicilaion.
She asked Ruiz to speak to her in a restroom. Ruiz asked
her what she was doing in building 6 and if l.avendera was
on her break. Lavendera replied that she was, did not have
much time, and was going to be passing around some union
cards. Ruiz asked Lavendera if she was not afraid and
Lavendera replied she was not. Ruiz then shrugged her
shoulders and said. "Well just don't get me involved." That
day Lavendera gave the cards to Guzman. he card solici-
tation period lasted for approximately 2 weeks.
Lavendera's vacation was scheduled to begin on Mon-
day, April 10. However, on Thursday. April 6, two perti-
nent incidents occurred. The first involved two conversa-
tions with Chai. At one point during the da, she was
passing Chai's office and he asked her if she was leasing on
her vacation "tomorrow" (which I presume to mean alfter
work on Friday, April 7). She replied she was: he then
asked her if she was certain she wished to go on vacation
for as long as 2 weeks. When she replied she did, he asked if
she would not rather take money instead of taking time.
She recalls him asking, "Are you sure? Because we need
you." She replied, "No. I need the time off."
Before the conversation ended she asked him if he was
going to give her an anniversary raise, as her employment
anniversary had occurred the day before. April 5. Because
other people were present, he asked her to refrain from
speaking about it until later. Shortly thereafter he called
Lavendera to his office and told her that she would get her
anniversary raise when she returned from her vacation
The second incident occurred that evening when the first
union meeting was held at her home. It was attended by
approximately 20 employees as well as Union Organizer
Dick Sierra.
On the following day. Friday. April 7, janitor Jose Cam-
pero was working in building 4 near Chai's office. Chai saw
him and asked him into the office where they had a conver-
sation. Campero says that after they exchanged pleasantries
Chai asked him if he knew anything about a union. Campe-
ro replied he did not. Then. according to Campero, Chai
asked him if he knew anybody as a leader of a union. Again
Campero replied he did not.' Campero recalled Chai stated
there had been previous times when a union had attempted
to come into the Company but that it was kind of silly to do
so, "because this isn't the sort of company that a union can
come into. It is strictly with the government." Then Chai
specifically asked Campero if Lavendera was a union
leader. Campero denied she was, saying he didn't know
who the leader was.
Campero then left Chai's office and a few minutes later
saw Lavendera. He had concluded from Chai's inquiry that
Lavendera's job was in jeopardy. He told her that Chai
knew everything about the meeting at Lavendera's house
the night before and had been questioning him about it. He
told her he thought she was going to get fired. Lavendera
asked Campero how Chai knew, but Campero did not
know. He could only tell her that Chai had questioned him
about her saying that Chai knew she was the captain and
Campero thought she was going to get fired.
As a result. Lavendera decided to speak to Chai but had
to wait until later in the morning. She found him upstairs in
I Camperso had pres lousl 5 signed a card at Lavendera's shlicitalon
863
I)(CISIONS OF NAIIONAI IABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the microbiology department and asked if she could speak
to him. [le invited her to his office on the floor below. Upon
arriving at his office, she opened the conversation saying
she knew he had been asking questions about her having a
meeting at her house the night belore and said she wanted
to tell him that she was not involved in those activities. He
replied that he was not asking questions but had found out
that morning she had signed a union card. She replied that
if she signed a card or if she threw it away or whatever, she
was not going to tell him, she had just come to clear her
name. ie said, "Frances, I don't care if you are a union
member or not. You can be a Republican or Methodist or a
Catholic, whatever. I don't care what you are, but I found
out this morning that you signed a card, a union card." She
told him that he could not fire her for that and he replied,
"I know I can't fire you for this, but after lunch I can find
any excuse to let you go." Then, according to Lavendera.
he opened the door and called in one of the secretaries.
Edith, and again repeated his statement that he did not care
if she was a union member. a Republican, or a Catholic or
whatever, and that she could go back to her job.
Later, about 3 p.m. he called her to his office again. He
attempted to also call the chief microbiologist. Andy
Movius, but could not reach him. Lavendera testified Chai
began the conversation with her by asking if she knew Re-
spondent was making lidocaine jelly.7 Lavendera replied
that she was aware of that fact. He then asked her if she
knew lidocaine jelly did not have to be sterilized; she re-
plied she did. s He then asked her if she knew "we" were
moving to building 2;9 she replied she was aware of that as
well. Then he told her they would not be moving to build-
ing 2 and because lidocaine jelly did not have to be steril-
ized he was letting her go. She asked, "Go where?" He did
not respond verbally but opened his drawer and handed her
an envelope. At that moment she understood it was her
paycheck. She asked him whether she was being fired be-
cause of their conversation that morning about the Union.
but he replied he was not firing her. "I am just laying you
off." He remarked that he hoped the Union did something
good for her, because it had not done anything good for
him. He also asked her why no one had given him a union
card and why no one had asked him anything. She replied
she did not know and he said, "Well. like I told you before,
I don't care if you are a Republican. Protestant or what-
ever." Then he told her she was paid until 4:30 p.m. but she
could leave now.
Isabel Lucero was a glassware washer in the building 4
laboratory. On April 10, pursuant to Chai's instructions,
she began making the microbiology media previously made
"The Physicians Desk Reference," (32d ed.. 1978) at 589, states that
lidocaine jelly is a topical anesthetic commonly used in catheterization pro-
cedures. Lidocaine. in jelly and other forms, is more commonly known under
its copyright name. Xylocaine. It is alsot manufactured as an injectible, but
that use is not pertinent here.
t lavendera had never worked with lidocaine jelly and did not really know
whether it required sterilization. In view of its use in catheterization proce-
dures. I doubt that a nonsterile product would be acceptable.
I The record is not clear whether Chai was referring to the QA department
or the microbiology section of the chemistry lab. Building 2 was a microbiol-
ogy lab utilized by the QA department, but QA headquarters were in build-
ing 4.
by Lavendera. She testified that that morning (hai called
her into his office and told her she was now to make media
and do her own job as well. He told her he had laid off
l.avendera because there was not enough work, "Not be-
cause of any union activities or any meetings or anything
like that, that he didn't care about that." He asked if she
had any questions and she asked him why he had laid off
L.avendera instead of her since she had been ill and had had
to cut back her working hours. He replied there was "very
little he could tell Frances to do." l.ucero asked if she
would be getting paid more for doing both jobs but he said
he would have to see how she was doing first.
Lucero worked for several days doing both jobs, hut then
quit because of the illness (a fiot problem) mentioned
above. Before leaving, Lucero trained another individual to
make the media.
Manuela Espinoza is a janitor who cleaned several build-
ings, including No. 3. the vial injector assembly area. In
April the "gold coat" in that area was Annie Gonzalez.
Espinoza testified she signed a card solicited by Lavendera
one day at the bus stop. She was also solicited by Guzman.
She remembers one day in early April she was cleaning the
office next to Gonzalez' when Gonzalez came in and asked
her if she knew Lavendera had been dismissed. Espinoza
replied that she did not: Lavendera had said she was going
on vacation. Gonzalez told her Lavendera had been dis-
missed because of the Union and that Chat had dismissed
her.
Esperanza Robles worked building 7, the pharmaceutical
production department. She worked in the sterile filling
room, known as the "white room." The gold coat fbr that
department was Joyce Staggs. However, the senior white
room supervisor was a blue coat named Connie Contreras.'°
Robles recalls that sometime in March (probably April be-
cause Lavendera's departure did not occur until April) that
Contreras had told her that Lavendera had been dismissed
because she was supporting the Union.
Maria Garcia testified that in April, in Robles' presence,
Contreras asked her whether Garcia knew if Lavendera had
come in that morning. Garcia replied she did not know as
she had come in early. Then Contreras asked her if she
knew that a lot of girls from building 7 had signed union
authorization cards. Garcia professed not to know and
asked Contreras if she had signed. Contreras replied she
had not and Garcia asked why not, was Contreras afraid to
get fired? Contreras answered "Well, Bill Hinderer (Re-
spondent's vice president in charge of operations) had said
that those who signed cards would be fired." Robles cor-
roborated Garcia. including Contreras' remark about
Lavendera's absence.
Chai denied that he discharged Lavendera because he
had learned of her union activities. He asserts that he dis-
charged her because he had learned in late March, approxi-
mately 10 days before her layoff, that one of Respondent's
products, inhalation medication, did not require sterility
tests. He had reviewed certain Food and Drug Administra-
tion regulations and had concluded that sterility testing on
that particular product line was no longer necessary. Ac-
cordingly, on March 31, he so told Respondent's president,
in Contreras' supervisory status is in issue and is discussed inra.
864
INTERNATIONAL MEDICATION SYSTEMS. LTD.
Robert W. Ogle. Chai also wrote a memo to that effect on
that date. He testified that as the inhalation medication no
longer required sterility testing, Lavendera's job was elimi-
nated in order to reduce the number of employees in the
microbiology control laboratory where Lavendera worked
as a QA inspector. He said that, although the decision to
eliminate the job was made on March 31, it was not carried
out until April 7 because of the existing tests that were then
underway.
He did not deny Lavendera's testimony regarding their
April 6 conversations and. although he admits having had a
conversation with her on April 7 regarding her discharge,
he denies asking her if she had been involved with the
Union and denies telling her he had found out she had
signed a union authorization card. He also denied saying he
would find an excuse to fire her. With respect to Campero's
testimony. Chai said Campero had once asked him what he
thought of the Union, and he had told Campero that he did
not feel one way or the other about it and that Campero
was free to vote however he chose. With regard to Laven-
dera's testimony that the two had discussed lidocaine jelly
and the cancellation of moving the microbiology laboratory
to Building 2, he testified that he "didn't know" if either
subject was discussed.
He was asked by the General Counsel if he had brought
to the hearing the FDA regulations upon which he had
allegedly relied in concluding the inhalation medication no
longer needed sterility testing. He answered that he had not
brought them with him.
2. Lucila Guzman
As noted, supra, Lucila Guzman solicited and obtained
approximately 25 signatures of rank-and-file employees on
union authorization cards. This had been done at the behest
of Frances Lavendera. They had principally been solicited
in the lunchroom of building 5. and in the parking lot be-
tween buildings 5 and 6. She was employed in building 6 as
a blue coat, a table supervisor in the packaging department.
Her immediate superior was gold coat Yvonne Ruiz, the
department head.
In April or May, Guzman had asked the personnel de-
partment for permission to take the first 2 weeks of July as
her vacation period together with an extra week on leave of
absence. Permission had been granted and had been ap-
proved by Ruiz as well. Her last day of work was Friday.,
June 30, as she began her vacation on Monday, July 3. She
was aware of a company policy that vacation periods were
to be extended by I day if a paid holiday fell during the
vacation period. In this case, Independence Day fell within
her vacation period and was a paid holiday. Thus, she testi-
fied she believed her vacation and leave of absence ex-
tended through Monday, July 24, with a reporting date of
Tuesday, July 25.
On July 6 the NLRB election was conducted at Respon-
dent's premises. Guzman was the Union's observer. She at-
tended the preelection conference conducted in President
Ogle's office and, as it was breaking up, Vice President Hin-
derer asked her, "Is this a fine way to have a vacation?" She
replied, "Oh, yes." This testimony is undenied and it is clear
that Respondent was aware she had returned from her va-
cation to serve as the Union's observer during the election.
Believing her reporting date to be Tuesday. July 25. (iuz-
man did not report on Monday, July 24. Ruiz testified that
when Guzman did not appear for work on JulS 24. she
decided to discharge her. Accordinglx, she sent Guzman a
telegram saying she was terminated on that date and her
check would be mailed. Ruiz testified Guzman's extra da,
of vacation. for the July 4th holiday. had been Monda\.
July 17. Accepting that logic, Guzman's leave of absence
turned out to be only for 4 days.
Guzman testified without contradiction that she had
asked for a full week's leave of absence and no one hd ever
told her she had only been granted 4 davs. She also said she
does not recall ever being told she had to return on Jul_ 24.
Both she and Ruiz agree she had been told she ran the risk
of being replaced during her leave of absence, but that wsas
a risk she was apparently willing to run.
Ruiz testified she determined to discharge Guzman on
July 24 because she had a poor attendance record. She sid
she waited until 3 o'clock that day. but Guzman nev.er ap-
peared., so she sent the telegram. With regard to Guzmln's
alleged poor attendance record, it appears that in Ma' 1977
Ruiz' predecessor had spoken to Guzman about being late
and. at one point, though the date is not clear. he had
received a written warning regarding tardiness.
It is clear from the testimony of a number of witnesses
that Respondent's policy regarding unexcused absences was
to permit an employee two unexcused absences. but that
the third was a ground for discharge. There is no evidence
that Ruiz afforded Guzman the benefit of the policy. In
addition. Ruiz acted quickly and peremptorily by sending a
wire rather than awaiting Guzman's appearance. Moreover.
Guzman appears to have been home on Mondal. Juli 24.
and Ruiz could easily have telephoned her before taking
such a drastic step as severance."''
B. Falis Relating to .411eged Interfirence. Restrain, and
Coercion
The complaint alleges that Respondent engaged in cer-
tain additional conduct which unlawfully deprived employ-
ees from freely exercising their Section 7 rights by accusing
it of unlawfully creating the impression of surveillance of
employees' union activities, threatening employees with dis-
charge or other reprisals, threatening employees with more
onerous working conditions if they chose the ;nion to rep-
resent them, interrogating employees regarding their union
activities, sympathies, and desires. and threatening emplox-
ees with loss of their jobs by threatening to close the plant.
Much of the evidence adduced by the General Counsel is
unrebutted.
1. Gloria Aparicio
The General Counsel has accused building 5 gold coat
Gloria Aparicio. the shipping department supervisor. of
violating Section 8(a)( I) of the Act in various wa s. In this
regard. the General Counsel relies on the testimony of em-
" Guzman testified she has a telephone in her house.
X68
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees Elvira Castro. Maria Lopez, Manuela Espinoza.
and Josie Saavedra. Castro and Lopez worked as packag-
ers. Espinoza is a janitor, and Saavedra was a laundry de-
partment employee.
Castro testified that shortly before a layoff, which oc-
curred on April 28. she was speaking to Aparicio at her
work table. Lopez arrived during the conversation. hey
testified Aparicio asked whether Castro had taken some
union cards and told Castro to tell her the truth, as she did
not want Castro to lie, because that evening she was going
to have a meeting with President Ogle to discuss the Union.
She said she did not want Castro or Lopez to lie to her
because if the man (Ogle) found out she had given him
misinformation, she would be reprimanded. Lopez adds
Aparicio said Ogle was going to ask her if "her girls" had
signed union authorization cards and if she said they had
not, he would accuse her of lying and show her the cards.
Aparicio then asked them both if' they had signed union
cards. Castro said she had only learned about the drive that
morning: Lopez replied she hadn't yet had a chance to get
one from the union organizer.
In addition, Josie Saavedra testified that on one occasion
in early April she and five or six other people were having
lunch in the building 5 lunchroom. Present were Aparicio.
senior white room supervisor Connie Contreras, and several
employees, including a Beckie and a Queenie, as well as
Saavedra's husband, Armando, who worked in building 6.
Beckie said she had nearly run over a union organizer that
morning and Aparicio, in an apparent joke, said she should
have. Then Aparicio asked what the organizer had been
handing out. Two of the employees offered that they
thought the Union was a good idea. Aparicio said she
wanted to know if the employees present knew who had
signed the union cards and if anyone in building 7 had
signed. Saavedra remembers Aparicio asking the employee
named Queenie, who worked in building 10, to find out
who had signed cards in that department. She says Aparicio
also asked her husband, Armando Saavedra, to find out
who had signed in building 6.
Saavedra also testified that later, during another lunch,
Aparicio came in saying she was "sick to her stomach"
because President Ogle had told her Respondent's attorney
had said at least 42 employees had signed union authoriza-
tion cards. Saavedra reports Aparicio as saying Ogle had
"good lawyers and that they are willing to fight and that if
we knew of anybody that had signed with the Union or
anything, that they would be terminated because Mr. Ogle
was going to find out who had signed because if he would
have go to go court, he would have to see a list of names
before he would appear or do anything." Saavedra also re-
calls Aparicio as saying Ogle loved to fight and that the
Union had tried to get in before, but had failed and Ogle
either had had or would have the Union for breakfast.
Espinoza testified that shortly before the election Apari-
cio called her to the packaging room office. A clerical
named Lettie was present. Espinoza says Aparicio asked
her if she was ready to vote. When Espinoza told her she
did not know, Aparicio said that it would be better if Espi-
noza voted no, otherwise the owner would close the Com-
pany. Espinoza says Aparicio also told her she could lose
her job if she voted yes. Espinoza replied that she did not
care if she lost her job, that God had given it to her and
could also open the way for another job.
Respondent adduced no evidence to counter any of the
foregoing, except to observe that Saavedra may have had a
bias against the Company for being discharged unfairly. I
have carefully examined her testimony and can find no evi-
dence that it was colored by bias.-'
2. William Hinderer
William Hinderer, as previously observed, is Respon-
dent's vice president in charge of operations. One of his
duties is to oversee production. In the course of that duty he
often dressed in sterile clothing so he could be present dur-
ing medication fills in the white room. Anna Perez, a white
room blue coat, testified that on June 26 she and Hinderer.
together with employee Charlotte Witt. were in the second
dressing room putting on their "bunny suits," sterile uni-
forms. She remembers Hinderer saying to Witt that if the
girl's did not like it here, why did they stay? If they thought
the Union was going to get them more money. they were
wrong. He said he felt sorry for the girls because the Union
had promised them a lot of' things he did not think they
were going to get. Witt asked Hinderer if he still was going
to do what he had said he was going to do. Hinderer asked
her what she meant and Witt said, "You said you were
going to fire all the girls, if the Union came in and hire news
ones." Perez testified Hinderer responded: "I didn't sa_
that. Ogle said he would." Witt replied, "Well. I eel sorry
for him if he does that." Hinderer continued, saying he
"didn't put it past him (Ogle) because he was that kind of a
man."
3. Connie Contreras
The complaint alleges that Connie Contreras is a statu-
tory supervisor and that she threatened employees with dis-
charge and onerous working conditions if' they selected the
Union to represent them. Respondent denied her supervi-
sory status, and I shall deal with that issue first. Although
Contreras did not testify, it appears that she had worked for
Respondent as a lead girl in the white room for several
years. In fact, personnel documents show she was promoted
to "capping supervisor" in January 1976. In October 1976,
according to an employee change request, she was given a
35-cent increase for her 5 years' service; that, too, refers to
her status as a supervisor. Again, in February 1978, a rate
card shows she received a 10-cent increase and was classi-
fied as a white room supervisor. However, Contreras was a
blue coat, and it was common practice within Respondent's
personnel system to refer to all blue coats as "supervisor.
Indeed, I am satisfied that with the possible exception of
Contreras, the blue coats are not statutory supervisors.
1 She was fired when she became angry at Respondent for requiring her o
use her personal car to take an employee to the hospital. She thought Re-
spondent should have used one of its own vehicles. She says another reason
given her for the discharge was that Respondent would no longer permit two
members of the same family to be employed by it. If the bias which she may
have over her discharge affected her testimony, I could not detect it. (er-
tainly in light of evidence elsewhere her testimony appears entirely probable
866
INTERNATIONAL MEDICATION SYSTEMS. LTD.
Contreras' situation, however, appears to be different, at
least for several months' beginning in February 1978. Dur-
ing that month Joyce Staggs was appointed to be the build-
ing 7 department head, replacing an individual who had
left. Operations Vice President Hinderer announced Staggs'
appointment as a gold coat at a meeting of all building 7
employees. He testified the purpose of the meeting was to
introduce Staggs as the new production manager. He said
he told the employees that remaining "supervision" would
remain the same and he named all the blue coats. He told
the employees they would get an across-the-board raise"
and he would wipe clean all the attendance records. He
testified that at that time Contreras was the "senior white
room supervisor." Staggs, who became Contreras' immedi-
ate superior, testified she had never heard that term before
the instant hearing. However, white room, blue coat Perez
remembers Hinderer referring to Contreras as the "senior
supervisor of the white room" during the February meeting.
and also heard him repeat it later in March when Charlotte
Witt was rehired. Esperanza Robles remembers Hinderer
saying during the Staggs' introduction that Contreras was
"in charge of the white room." l.ikewise, Josie Saavedra
testified Hinderer said during the meeting that if building 7
employees could not locate Staggs in the event problems
arose, they were to go to Contreras.
It is clear that the supervisor/employee status of an indi-
vidual depends not on his or her title, but on the duties
performed. There is a great deal of testimony in the record
that Contreras assigned employees their daily tasks. Indeed.
it appears that, at least until the authority was taken from
her in the late summer, she scheduled white room employ-
ees independently of Staggs. On occasion se was seen to
overrule changes Staggs made. Moreover. there is her disci-
pline of employee Carmen Mendez. Contreras and Mendez
had gotten into a dispute regarding proper work proce-
dures. Garcia heard Contreras tell Mendez that she would
"get it." Immediately thereafter, Contreras assigned Men-
dez to white room cleaning, an undesirable job. According
to Garcia, corroborated by other employees, Contreras con-
tinued to assign Mendez the cleaning job for over a month
as punishment for engaging in the dispute.
In addition, according to Perez, Contreras once threat-
ened to send a white coat, one Olivia, back to the training
room if she failed to correct her habit of making sloppy
errors during fills in the white room. Perez also observed
that Vice President Hinderer usually bypassed Staggs in
order to confer with Contreras about white room matters.
Furthermore, Contreras once told Perez that she had inter-
viewed people to be employed in the white room and had
recommended against their hire, and Respondent had not
hired them. Moreover. it is clear that Contreras commonly
reassigned employees whose white room work had ended
for the day, but who still had not completed their workday,
to buildings 3 and 6 to help out with vial injector assembly
or packaging.
Contrary to this evidence is Staggs' testimony that the
tasks performed by Contreras, such as scheduling and reas-
1i Contreras' O-cent wage Increase in February was a result o Hinderer's
action here.
signing people, had simply been delegated to Contreras by
her and that Contreras was merely following her directions.
I was not impressed with Staggs as a witness. As noted
above, she claimed she had never heard the term "senior
white room supervisor," though it was utilized by Hinderer
to describe Contreras, and others report Hinderer as having
used the term in February. Staggs was defensive in attitude
and appeared reluctant to speak. She lacked candor. It does
appear, however, that Contreras' authority with regard to
schedules and work assignments became limited during a
layoff later in 1978. Perez describes that in some detail.
After that layoff. Contreras' relative independence was lost
Nonetheless, her loss does not detract rom m) conclusion
that during the preelection period beginning in March 1978
Contreras was a statutory supervisor. I reach this conclu-
sion based on her ability to independently schedule emplo,-
ees and reassign them, her apparent ability to effectixel,
recommend that employees not be hired, her discipline of
employees, and the fact that Hinderer apparently consid-
ered her to have special authority over and above that nor-
mally granted blue coats.
Having concluded that Contreras is a supervisor. I now,
proceed to the allegations in the complaint involving her
The evidence with regard to these matters is uncontradicted
and is detailed by white room employee Maria Garcia. As
noted above in the section dealing with l.avendera's dis-
charge, in April. Contreras told Garcia she knew a lot orI
the girls in building 7 had signed union cards and after a
discussion told Garcia that Hinderer had said those who
signed would be fired. Later, in August. Contreras asked
Garcia if she knew something about the Union. Garcia re-
plied she did not, and Contreras told her the people who
had signed the cards were stupid because the Union prom-
ised lots of things. but could not deliver them. She went on
to say Ogle had told her he would never sign a collective-
bargaining contract and no one could do anything about
that. In addition, she told Garcia that Ogle was making the
employees work very hard in order to force everybody to
quit. Garcia recalls it was true that employees were being
asked to do more because Respondent had reduced the
number of employees to do the work.
Although Respondent did not call Contreras to rebut
Garcia's testimony in this regard. it did note that in her
pretrial affidavit she failed to include the August conversa-
tion. While in some circumstances this might be sufficient
ground to discredit her, I do not believe it to be so here.
particularly where Contreras could have been called to tes-
tify' but was not. Accordingly I conclude Garcia's testi-
mony should be credited.
IV. ANALYSIS AND (ON;( tSI(INS
A. The Discharge of Frances Lavendera
Analysis of the evidence regarding the discharge or.
euphemistically, the layoff of Frances l.avendera leads me
to conclude that it was discriminatorily motivated.
It is clear that Lavendera was the leading employee orga-
nizer for the Union and Respondent knew it. She was visi-
ble in employee parking lots and lunchrooms soliciting sig-
867
DE)CISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
natures, and she solicited at least two other employees to
assist her in that endeavor. It is undenied that the day be-
fore her discharge her immediate supervisor, Chat, asked
her to forego her vacation because she was needed. He also
advised her that she would get an anniversary raise after
she returned from her vacation. That evening the first union
meeting took place at her home, and on the following day
she was discharged. Chai explains her discharge in ex-
tremely hollow terms, saying he had decided her job was no
longer needed a week previously because certain inhalation
medication no longer needed sterility testing."
Lavendera had been specially trained as a QA inspector
and had been repeatedly assured that her job was secure. In
fact, during an earlier layoff, she was retained in a slightly
different capacity in the production laboratory to insure
that she would remain. Respondent had invested a certain
amount of time and money in training her and did not wish
to lose her. She was a versatile employee and. until she
permitted a union meeting to be conducted at her home.
Respondent had gone out of its way to keep her.
In addition, there is the admission made by Gonzalez to
Espinoza that Lavendera had been dismissed because of the
Union. It is true that Gonzalez was not Lavendera's imme-
diate supervisor. but it is probable that she had knowledge
of the decision-making process. Robles testified that Con-
treras made a similar admission to her, although I place less
weight on that as Contreras was not as likely to be privy to
the process as Gonzalez. Nonetheless, in view of other evi-
dence, both admissions appear to be accurate reflections of
Respondent's policy and are not simply the opinions of su-
pervisors not privy to the actual decision. In any event.
even Vice President Hinderer made a statement to the
white room employees that employees who did support the
Union would be discharged, though he denied it. It is true
that he is said to have attributed the threat to Ogle, not
himself. Assuming that the attribution to Ogle is accurate, it
is extremely likely that supervisors such as Gonzalez, or
even Contreras, might well be aware of the actual grounds
for Lavendera's dismissal. Even if Hinderer was simply
masking his own threat, as vice president of operations he
was certainly echoing company policy. In any event, Chai
did not deny that on April 6 he asked Lavendera to fbrego
her vacation for cash or that he told her she would get her
anniversary increase upon her return from vacation. I ac-
cept her testimony as true. It follows that Chai's testimony
that he made the decision to lay off Lavendera on March 31
1 I tend to doubt Chai's testimony regarding the lack of need Ibr sterility
testing on the medications in question. It is true that Lavendera testified that
in her exit interview Chai referred to lidocaine jell) . He says he cannot recall
any reference to that product, referring instead to inhalation medication. It
appears that in either case sterility testing would be likely Moreover. there is
credible evidence trom Lavendera and ltucero to the effect that Respondent
continued to need the same amount of media for such testing after Laven-
dera's departure as it did before. Lavendera testified that on her last day she
was directed to make twice the amount of media (preparatory to her vaca-
tion). Lucero made notes of the amounts she was told to make and testified
that she continued to make as much or more media as that made previously
by Lavendera. She also says she trained a replacement. Chat, however, de-
nies Lavendera was replaced by Lucero or anyone else I find it is unneces-
sary to resolve the question of whether Chai spoke of lidocaine jelly or
inhalation medication. Even if Lavendera is mistaken on the point. it would
not affect my conclusions on other credibility matters between the two.
is not worthy of credit. Certainly his memo on that date
does not lend support to his testimony. It does not mention
the need to reduce the employee complement in any fash-
ion. Moreover, his self-effacing denial of unlawful motiva-
tion to Lavendera and Lucero only tends to suggest that the
opposite of his denial is the truth. In this regard I note that
he admits saying he did not care what Lavendera's religious
or political preferences were and thereby partially corrobo-
rates her. He never denied Lucero's testimony that he vol-
unteered to her that he hadn't fired Lavendera because of
her involvement with the Union. His statement in that cir-
cumstance may reasonably be taken as protesting too
much, for it was unnecessary and appears to have been
triggered by guilt. I find, therefore, that Chai's reliance on
the elimination of sterility testing as mandating Lavendera's
layoff, if he did so at all, was simply a convenient excuse to
discharge her, but was not the real reason for it.
Accordingly, I conclude that Respondent discharged
Lavendera because of her union activities.
B. The Discharge of Lucila Guzmna
Lucila Guzman was one of Lavendera's card solicitor as-
sistants. In addition, however, she was the Union's observer
at the July 6 election, having returned from her vacation to
serve in that capacity. It is clear that Respondent was
aware of her union activity. As observed elsewhere in this
Decision. Respondent clearly had sufficient antiunion ani-
mus to be motivated to engage in a discriminatory dis-
charge. Moreover, the reason given for her discharge is, as
in Lavendera's case, specious. Guzman's supervisor,
Yvonne Ruiz, testified she decided to discharge Guzman
upon her failure to report for work on the Monday follow-
ing the expiration of her leave of absence. Ruiz said she did
this because she was well aware of Guzman's spotty attend-
ance record. She also relied on the fact that Guzman's per-
mission to take the leave of absence was at her own peril as
Guzman had been told that Respondent might, if it needed
to do so, replace her. In Ruiz' mind that factor weakened
Guzman's employment tenure. Frankly. I am puzzled why
that condition was placed on her leave of absence in the
first place. It seems a totally unnecessary condition to have
imposed. It may well have been imposed because Respon-
dent was already aware of Guzman's union activities and
was attempting to set her up for a fall.
In any event. Ruiz did not follow Respondent's policy of
permitting three unexcused absences before discharging
Guzman. At best, this was only her first, although she may'
have been tardy before. Furthermore, Ruiz did not counter
Guzman's testimony that she had not been told the extra
holiday would be subtracted from her leave of absence.
Guzman did not know Respondent was treating her vaca-
tion as extended in this manner and not unreasonably be-
lieved it would be added to her leave of absence. Respon-
dent's failure to explain that fact to Guzman at the same
time it was carefully explaining the peril she was in if Re-
spondent needed another employee seems strange to me.
Finally, there is the haste in which Ruiz acted. She knew
Guzman had a telephone but made no effort to reach her,
waiting instead until the afternoon when she wired Guzman
she had been discharged, giving Guzman no opportunity to
868
INITRNAl1I(NAl. M.I)ICATION SYSI EMS. 1.1l).
explain her failure to appear for work. All this. it seems to
me. leads to the conclusion that Respondent simpl\ vsas
awaiting an excuse to discharge (iuzman. Indeed. it ap-
pears to have engineered Guzman's leave in such a wa as
to make it highly probable that a misunderstanding would
occur. Accordingly. I reject Ruiz' explanation and conclude
that Respondent utilized this incident as an excuse to dis-
criminatorily rid itself of union-adherent Guzman.
C. The I iolalions o'f Seclion 8(a)( I) oft he .4At
It will be recalled that the allegations involving Supervi-
sors Aparicio and Contreras are essentially undenied. Ac-
cordingly, I find that Aparicio. in April. unlawfully interro-
gated employees Castro and Lopez by asking them if they
had signed union cards. In the same conversation she told
them Ogle would show her their cards if they said untruth-
fully that they had not signed. The latter remark implies
Ogle had access to the cards and clearly told those employ-
ees that Respondent was aware of their activity. That con-
stitutes the unlawful creation of the impression of surveil-
lance. Also in April. Aparicio unlawfully interrogated Josie
Saavedra, as well as others, regarding the identity of card
signers and attempted to recruit two employees to report on
who else had signed cards. Later, when Aparicio said she
was "sick to her stomach" because Ogle had told her 42
employees had signed cards, she again transmitted the ex-
pression that Respondent had the employees' union activi-
ties under surveillance. Simultaneously she said Ogle would
fire card signers and that he would not deal with the Union
until after a court fight. These statements are unlawful as
well. The last announces the futility of union representa-
tion.
In July Aparicio continued to threaten employees unlaw-
fully. On this occasion she told Espinoza she could lose her
job if she did not vote against union representation.
I also find that Contreras violated the Act in April by
telling Garcia she knew a lot of girls in building 7 had
signed union cards and by telling her Hinderer had said
card signers would be fired. Later, in August, Contreras
continued to violate Section 8(a)(1) by saying card signers
were stupid because the Union could not deliver on its
promises because Ogle would never sign a collective-bar-
gaining contract and no one could do anything about it.
Finally, she violated the Act by saying people were being
worked harder because they had voted for the Union with
an object of forcing people to quit. The latter statement
violates the Act in two ways. First, it amounts to a state-
ment that the workload had been increased and made more
onerous in reprisal for the employees' having selected union
representation. Second, it is a thinly veiled threat ofjob loss
for having selected the Union.
In addition. I find that Hinderer's statement to Witt. re-
ported by Perez, to the effect that Ogle was the kind of man
who would fire employees for engaging in union activities.
was also an unlawful threat. It occurred on June 26. only 10
days before the election, and was designed to chill that ac-
tivity. I recognize that Hinderer denied Perez' version. but I
deem her version more probable in view of the fact that
similar conduct was occurring elsewhere. Chai's interroga-
tion of Campero regarding Lavendera was also unlawful.
Accordingl\. I conchlude ihtl. tr the most prt. the
(ieneral Counsel has proven that Respondent \ olated Sec-
ton X(a)( I bh engaging in the above-cited conduct.
. 1111 RIMI I)
tlasing found that Respondent has engaged in unfair la-
bor practices ithin the meaning of Section 8(a( I and 3i
of the Act hb threatening. restraining. and coercing ctnplo\ -
ees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights aind h\ discharg-
ing Frances Lasendera and .ucila (uziman because of
their organizing activities on behalf of the UInion. I shall
recommend that it he ordered to cease and desist therefrtomll
and to take certain affirmative action designed to effctuate
the policies ot the Act. In addition. I shall recommend that
Respondent he required to immediatels otTer ralnces
I.asendera and Lucila (iuzman reinstatement to their lor-
mer positions or, if the, no longer exist. to suhslantluli\
equivalent ones, without prejudice to their seniority or
other rights and privileges and make them whole with inter-
est for lost earnings in the manner prescribed hv the Board
in F '. Woolworth Coimparn'. 90 NLRB 289 (1950). and
Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).1 I have
considered the General Counsel's supplemental brief re-
questing that the interest rate on backpay he increased to 9
percent. It appears to me that, while the General Counsel's
motion is not without some merit, it is an argument which
should be made directly to the Board because of its recent
consideration of the matter in Florida Steel. upra.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact. and upon the entire
record of this case. I make the following:
CON( I I SNS )1 LASN
I. The Respondent. International Medication Systems,
Ltd., is an employer engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. California Teamsters Public, Professional and Medical
Employees. I.ocal U:nion 9q 1. International Brotherhood of
Teamsters. Chauffeurs. Warehousemen and Helpers of'
America. is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
3. On various dates in 1978, as shown in the bod\ of this
Decision. Respondent iolated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
by: creating the impression that the emplosees' union ac-
tivity was under surveillance, interrogating emplo_ ecs
about their union activities and whether the5 had signed
union authorization cards, recruiting emplo)ees to report
on the union activities of other employees, threatening them
with loss of their jobs (via discharge. forcing employees to
quit. or closing the plant) and stating that union representa-
15 The General Counse l the healrng amended the complaintl I, allege
that Supervisor Annie (,.nmzlez in April 19 unla' ulls threatened an em-
plosee with discharge The onl] eidence supporting he illegalion is her
statement. considered as in admission. , to splno.l hat (Chat had tired
Lavendera for supporting the l nlon. I cannot lind a threat in this statement.
except by excessile stretching Ai hest the ihreal is implied In ans esent. he
remedy would he the same as Iror nore le.r s lihon' iound lse' herrr [hi
allegation should he dismissed
1I /si, Plumbing & iteitrg (', , 138 NI RB 71h Ii 162
h869
I)E('ISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARI)
tion would he futile as no benefit could be obtained without
a bitter tight, all with an object of' coercing employees from
selecting union representation.
4. On April 7 and July 24, respectively. Respondent vlo-
lated Section 8(a)(3} and (I) of the Act by discharging its
employees, Frances Lavendera and l.ucila Guzman. be-
cause the)y had engaged in organizing on behalf of the
Union, holding union meetings. and serving as the Union's
observer at an NI.RB election.
5, Respondent did not engage in any other violations of
the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,.
and the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER'
The Respondent. International Medication Systems.
Ltd.. South El Monte, California, its officers. agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interfering with. restraining, or coercing employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of
the Act by: creating the impression that employees' union
activities are under surveillance, interrogating employees
about their union activities and whether they had signed
union authorization cards, recruiting employees to report
on the union activities of other employees, threatening em-
ployees with loss of their jobs (whether via discharge, forced
quits, or plant closure) and telling employees that union
representation is futile.
1" 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.
conclusions. and recommended Order herein shall. as provided i 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.
(b) Discharging or otherwise discriminating in regard to
the hire or tenure of' employees because they engage in
union activity.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of' the Act:
(a) Immediately offer Frances l.avendera and Lucila
(iuzman full reinstatement to their ormer jobs, together
with backpay and interest thereon in the manner set lorth
in that portion of this Decision entitled "The Remedy'."
(h) reserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents. for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports. and all other records neces-
sary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms
of this Order.
(c) Post at its South El Monte. California. place of busi-
ness copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix.'"
Copies of the notice, on forms to be provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 21. after being duly signed b an
authorized representative of Respondent. shall be posted by
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof: and be
maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days there-
after, in conspicuous places, including all places where no-
tices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced. or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21. in writ-
ing. within 20 days from the date of this Order. what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
Ir Is FURIRIlER ORDEREI) that any allegations remaining in
the complaint not herein specifically dealt with be, and
hereby are, dismissed.
1, In the event that 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 Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enflrcing an Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board."
X70