International Medication Systems, LTD

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 22, 1980

247 N.L.R.B. 1351 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

INTERNATIONAL MEDICATION SYSTEMS, LTD.
International Medication Sytems, Ltd. and Manuela
Espinoza. Case 21-CA-17464
February 22, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND TRUESDALE
On November 8, 1979, Administrative Law Judge
James S. Jenson issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed
an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified
below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Inter-
national Medication Systems, Ltd., South El Monte,
California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the said recommended
Order, as so modified:
1. Substitute the following for paragraph (b):
"(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
their Section 7 rights."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
' In light of the Board's Decision in Hickmott Foods. Inc.. 242 NLRB 1347
(1979). we find that the narrow cease-and-desist language "in any like or
related manner" is adequate to remedy the violation herein We shall modify
the recommended Order and notice accordingly. In affirming the dismissal ofr
the alleged 8(a)(3) and (4) violations concerning Espinoza. Member Jenkins
does not rely on the Administrative Law Judge's discussion of a "but for"
standard for such cases.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
Following a hearing at which all parties had an
opportunity to present evidence, the National Labor
Relations Board has found that we violated the
National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to
post this notice. We intend to abide by the following.
The National Labor Relations Act gives all
employees the right:
To organize themselves
To form, join, or support unions
To bargain as a group through representa-
tives of their own choosing
To act together for collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection
To refrain from any or all such activity
except to the extent that the employees' bar-
gaining representatives and employer have a
collective-bargaining agreement which imposes
a lawful requirement that employees become
union members.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees regarding
their involvement with the Union or threaten
them with reprisals for being involved with the
Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of your rights to self-organization, to
join, or assist California Teamsters Public, Pro-
fessional and Medical Employees, Local Union
No. 911, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, or any other union, to bargain through
representatives of your own choice, and to engage
in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any or all such
activities, except to the extent permitted by
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
INTERNATIONAL MEDICATION SYSTEMS,
LTD.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES S. JENSON, Administrative Law Judge: This case
was heard before me in Los Angeles, California, on August
7, 1979. The complaint, which issued on March 16, 1979,
pursuant to a charge filed on January 22, 1979, alleges
Respondent threatened employees with discharge and inter-
247 NLRB No. 190
1351
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rogated them regarding their union interest in December
1978, and terminated Manuela Espinoza on January 12,
1979, because of her union activities and because she
testified at an unfair labor practice hearing in December
1978. Respondent denies that it engaged in any unlawful
conduct and claims Espinoza was terminated because her
work performance was unsatisfactory. All parties were
afforded full opportunity to appear, to introduce evidence, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally, and to
file briefs. Briefs were filed by both the General Counsel and
Respondent and have been carefully considered. Upon the
entire record in this case, and from my observation of the
witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent is engaged in the manufacture of small-
volume pharmaceuticals in South El Monte, California.
Respondent annually purchases and receives goods and
products valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers
located outside the State of California. Respondent admits,
and it is found, that it is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent admits, and it is found, that California
Teamsters Public, Professional and Medical Employees,
Local Union No. 911, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Respondent is a pharmaceutical manufacturer, special-
izing in cardiac arrest drugs that are preloaded in ready-to-
inject form, and employs approximately 300 employees who
work in its 12 buildings. At times material herein, Robert
Ogle was Respondent's president, William Hinderer was vice
president of operations, Freda Arias was director of person-
nel,' Audry Watson was secretary to Ogle, and Manuela
Espinoza, the Charging Party, and Rosalda (Rosa) Camare-
na were employees.
Espinoza was hired in January 1977 at the rate of $2.50
per hour, and worked for approximately 2 months as a vial
injector assembler in building 3. According to Espinoza, in
March she was asked if she wanted to transfer to building 7
"because they needed someone there to clean out the
laboratory." According to Hinderer, director of personnel,
Aparacio reported that Espinoza was a slow worker, that she
supported a number of children, and asked if there was
another place in the Company that she could be used.
Accordingly, she transferred to building 7 as a janitress and
received a 10-cent per hour wage increase to cover the cost
of special lint-free garments which the employees were
required to purchase and wear in that building. Her duties
Gloria Aparacio preceded Arias in this position.
: As Hinderer neither understood nor spoke Spanish and as Espinoza spoke
included washing the utensils used by the chemists and
general housekeeping, including keeping the walls and floors
clean. Respondent operates under Federal Drug Administra-
tion rules, and frequent inspections are made by FDA agents
to insure that its standards of cleanliness are maintained.
Building 7 was described as a building within a building. The
inner, or "white room" is a "class 100 aseptic, sterile
environment." People who work in the "white room" are
required to wear "bunny outfits" including hoods, masks,
and gloves in order to maintain a total sterile atmosphere.
The outer part of the building, where Espinoza worked,
receives what is produced in the "white room" and, from a
cleanliness standpoint, is comparable to a hospital surgical
suite. As noted, employees in the outer part wear special
lint-free garments. Hinderer testified that the capping
stations, which are located in the outer part, require cleaning
up almost on an hourly basis so that cross-contamination
will not occur as personnel move from one capping station to
another. One of Espinoza's duties was "to keep the capping
stations clean." Espinoza testified that a few months after
her assignment to building 7, she was also assigned to clean
the offices and bathrooms in building 12.
In January 1978, Espinoza was switched from building 7
to cleaning the offices in buildings 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, and
Rosa Camarena, who had been cleaning those offices, was
switched to Espinoza's former job in building 7. Hinderer
testified that Espinoza's cleaning work in building 7 had
been inadequate and that he was afraid of an unfavorable
inspection report by the FDA. He claimed he had noticed
that Camarena was extremely diligent in her work and
thought it would be better to put her in the more critical
area. He testified that at the time he informed the two
women of the switch in jobs, he told Espinoza that she was
lazy, that her new job was very easy and one which she could
handle adequately, and that it was not necessary to follow a
timetable as in building 7.2 While denying she was told her
work in building 7 was unsatisfactory, Espinoza testified
Hinderer told her "not to be concerned about it, to do the
best I could." Camarena testified that Hinderer had asked
her to change jobs with Espinoza "because he needed to
have that area [building 7] cleaner . . . that the lady that
worked in there, apparently she wasn't doing her job right;"
that Hinderer told Espinoza that she was being given
Camarena's old job because it was easier and that she would
do it better; that she spent a day showing Espinoza what
areas she was to clean in her new job; that Espinoza told
her" she would do whatever she felt she was able to do
.... If she didn't have enough time to do a lot of other
things, then she wouldn't," and that she would not take care
of the dirty coffee cups in the afternoon. Her new duties
consisted of cleaning the bathrooms and putting in paper
and soap, vacuuming the carpets, cleaning the cupboards,
cabinets and desks, making coffee in buildings 9 and 10,
cleaning up the coffee dishes, and cleaning the windows.
only Spanish, Cecelia Lopez, a billing statistician, was used in the role of an
Interpreter.
1352
INTERNATIONAL MEDICATION SYSTEMS, LTD.
In approximately June 1978, Freda Arias was rehired as
director of personnel,' and occupied an office in building 10
which Espinoza was responsible for cleaning. In early
August, Espinoza was placed under her supervision. She
testified that she noticed the areas Espinoza was responsible
for cleaning were not in fact clean, and that she had
observed Espinoza talking to other girls instead of working,
and occasionally she would see her sitting down. She
testified that when she took over the responsibility for
Espinoza's work, she told Espinoza she did not feel she was
doing her job and hoped she would improve, and that
Espinoza stated that she would try to. Arias claimed she
pointed out to Espinoza a couple of areas that had not been
cleaned properly, including Ogle's office. Arias testified that
during the fall of 1978 she received several complaints about
the cleanliness of the bathrooms and furniture. She also
asked Joyce Staff, Espinoza's supervisor in building 7, about
her performance there, and was told that while she had
started out well, her quality of work had deteriorated. She
testified that during the first week in December she informed
Hinderer that she did not think Espinoza was doing a good
job, a fact Hinderer agreed with, and that she was going to
terminate her after Christmas.4 Hinderer responded that
since she was the director of personnel, the decision was up
to her. He testified that he told Arias that he'd "like her to
hold off until after the holidays."'
The record shows that on April 27 and October 2, 1978,
Espinoza executed affidavits relative to the investigation and
hearing of Case 21-CA-16588, 16678, and 16925 against
Respondent, the charges having been filed by California
Teamsters Public, Professional and Medical Employees,
Local Union No. 911, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America.
Administrative Law Judge James M. Kennedy's decision in
those cases, adopted by the Board in 244 NLRB 861,
discloses that in March 1978 the Teamsters commenced an
organizational drive among Respondent's employees; that
unfair labor practice charges were filed against Respondent
on April 19, May 18, and August 1, 1978, which resulted in
the issuance of a consolidated complaint; that a hearing was
held before Judge Kennedy pursuant to said consolidated
complaint on December 11, 12, and 13, 1978; that Espinoza
testified at said hearing on December 12 pursuant to a
subpena issued at the request of the General Counsel; that
Judge Kennedy issued his decision on April 5, 1979, finding,
inter alia, that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the
Act by creating the impression that the employees' union
activity was 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 them
with loss of their jobs (via discharge, forcing employees to
quit, or closing the plant), and stating that union representa-
tion would be futile as no benefit could be obtained without a
bitter fight, all with an object of coercing employees from
selecting union representation; that Respondent violated
Arias had worked for Respondent from 1969 until she quit in 1973. While
she lacked the title of director of personnel during her prior period of
employment, her duties. including hiring, were basically the same then as
now. Arias is bilingual.
'She intended to wait until after Christmas because "it's kind of hard to lay
off somebody during that time" who supports a number of children.
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by discharging two employees,
Lavendera and Guzman, because they engaged in organizing
on behalf of the Union, holding union meetings and serving
as the Union's observer at an NLRB election. Espinoza's
testimony at the hearing, which Judge Kennedy credited, is
found between pages 196 and 207 of the official transcript.
She testified, in substance, that she signed an authorization
card early in the campaign at the request of Lavendera; that
Guzman also gave her a card; that a supervisor told her that
Lavendera had been discharged because of the Union; that
shortly before the election conducted by the Board on July 6,
a supervisor told her it would be better to vote no [against
the Union]; otherwise the owner would close the Company,
and she could lose her job if she voted yes.
The parties stipulated that a subpena was mailed to
Espinoza on October 18, 1978, for her attendance at the
aforementioned unfair labor practice hearing. On either
Friday, December 8, or Monday, December 11, Espinoza
took the subpena to Arias. As she was not sure what the
document was, Arias, with Espinoza in attendance, took it
to Watson, Ogle's secretary, who stated that it was a
subpena for Espinoza's appearance in court. The three then
went into Ogle's office. Neither Watson nor Ogle understood
or spoke Spanish, so Arias acted in the capacity of a
translator. Ogle told Espinoza, through Arias, that she
would have to appear in "court" pursuant to the subpena,
that she should tell the truth, and that she should "punch
in" in the morning before going to "court" so that she
wouldn't lose any pay. It is clear from the testimony that
Espinoza and Arias also carried on a conversation between
themselves in Spanish. Espinoza testified that "Mrs. Freda
[Arias] then asked me if I was also involved about that
gossip about the union. I told her I was. If my co-workers
were involved in that, then I also had to lend them support
... She asked me, 'What if you get put in jail?' I said,
'Well, so what?'" Arias denied she asked Espinoza if she was
involved in the union gossip, or that she said anything about
going to jail. She claimed that after Espinoza, who had been
quite nervous, calmed down, the four sat in Ogle's office for
a while conversing, and Ogle said, in a joking manner, that
"We're all going to jail." Ogle was not called to testify, and
Watson denied there was anything said about "jail" or any
question asked about union activity. As both Espinoza and
Arias testified that reference was made to the word "jail,"
and bearing in mind that neither Watson understands
Spanish nor Espinoza understands english, I conclude that it
was Arias, speaking to Espinoza in Spanish, who made the
reference to jail which Espinoza testified about and account-
ing for the fact that Watson denied the word "jail" was
used.' In these circumstances, and as Ogle was not called to
testify, I credit Espinoza's version of the conversation
between her and Arias and find, in accordance with
paragraph 8 of the complaint, that Arias unlawfully interro-
gated Espinoza about her involvement with the Union, and
that Arias' question "What if you get put in jail?" in the
context in which it was said, may reasonably be construed as
' While Arias testified initially that the conversation with Hinderer took
place "around the first week" of December, Hinderer placed the conversation
"in December," and later "around the middle" of December I attach little
significance to the impreciseness of the date.
' Carcel is the Spanish word for jail.
1353
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a threat of reprisal for being involved with the Union, in
both instances violating Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
According to Espinoza, on January 11, 1979, she told
Arias, "I was going to get my vacation, that I was going to
let them know so they could find somebody to substitute for
me in the meanwhile. And she told me that we would talk
about that later on about my vacation .... I told her they
could hire someone to pick up the trash. And when I
returned, I would take care and clean everything. She told
me, 'We will talk about the subject later on.' I said, 'About
what? I am already telling you that I am thinking of doing.'
Then she told me, 'That's exactly what we will be talking
about, about your vacation.""'
Arias testified Espinoza first talked to her about a
vacation about 2 weeks earlier and then again on January I I,
after which she requested payroll to prepare Espinoza's
vacation check so that she could deliver it to her on January
12. Around noon on Friday, January 12, Arias summoned
Espinoza to her office, at which time she gave her the check
and told her she was terminated "Because you are not doing
your job satisfactory."
Camarena testified that after Espinoza was terminated,
she was assigned to help Isabel Chavez, Espinoza's replace-
ment. Camarena testified that "everything was dirty," and
that it took her and Chavez 7 days to clean everything. She
testified the "windows weren't cleaned .... Also the tables
and bathrooms were yellowish .... The desks, the tables,
underneath them, on top of them, there was quite a bit of
dust in them .... You see, the way I have taken care of it,
I know that if you clean it every 2 or 3 days, then you don't
notice any dust there. What I mean to say is that this area
here had not been cleaned for quite a number of days
because of the dust in it."
The General Counsel argues that Respondent had a
hostile attitude toward the Union and employees who
supported the Union as evidenced by its unlawful conduct in
the earlier unfair labor practice case, and Arias' questioning
Espinoza in the instant case whether she was involved in
union gossip and asking "What if you get put in jail?" He
points to the damaging testimony given by Espinoza at the
earlier trial and to the fact that Espinoza was terminated
exactly a month later. There is no question that Respondent
was aware of Espinoza's support of the Union since she told
Arias this on December 8 or 1, and testified at the trial in
the earlier case that she had signed a union card. Contending
Espinoza received no warnings about her deficient work, the
General Counsel argues that the record does not support a
claim that Espinoza did not perform her duties adequately;
and assuming, arguendo, that she was remiss in her duties,
her shortcomings were not serious enough prior to her
testifying in the earlier unfair labor practice hearing to
warrant her discharge. The General Counsel contends the
pretextual nature of the discharge is made clearer by
examining events leading to the discharge. Thus, at one
point, Arias testified she made up her mind to terminate
Espinoza 2 weeks prior to January 12, 1979; she also claimed
that in the first week of December 1978 she told Hinderer of
her decision to lay Espinoza off, but she was going to wait
until after Christmas; Hinderer testified that it was in mid-
Espinoza had 2 weeks paid vacation coming.
Cited by the Board in Florida Medical Center, Inc. d/h/a Lauderdale
Laker General Ilospital. 227 NLRB 1412 (1977).
December that Arias told him she was going to terminate
Espinoza and that he suggested she wait until after the the
General Counsel argues, even if Espinoza had been remiss in
her duties prior to testifying at the unfair labor practice
hearing, if was only after she testified that her alleged
shortcomings were viewed as being so serious that they
could not be tolerated and she had to be terminated.
Respondent argues that Espinoza had a history of
unsatisfactory performance, and that because of her large
family she was transferred from job to progressively easier
job in an effort to put her in work she could perform
satisfactorily. Respondent argues that Arias complained to
Espinoza about her work in August, but that improvement
was not shown. There was evidence that others also
complained about her work. Respondent argues that the
decision to let Espinoza go was made before Respondent had
knowledge of the fact that Espinoza was to testify at the
earlier unfair labor practice hearing, and that after Arias
discussed the matter with Hinderer, they decided to wait
until after the holidays to effectuate it. Respondent contends
Espinoza was terminated for a legitimate reason and that
there is no direct evidence she was terminated for the reason
the General Counsel alleges, which is based on a contrived
inference that because she was discharged after she testified,
she must have been terminated for that reason. Respondent
contends it was purely coincidental and fortutious that
Espinoza testified before she was let go.
The question present is whether Espinoza's discharge was
casually connected to either her union activity or to her
having given testimony unfavorable to the Respondent at a
prior unfair labor practice hearing. If her discharge was
motivated even in part because of such considerations, the
Respondent violated the Act.
As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in N.L.R.B. v.
Ayer Lar Sanitarium. 436 F.2d 45, 49-50 (9th Cir. 1970):"
Certainly in the absence of other circumstances the
employer has the right to discharge its employees ...
and the mere fact that an employee is or was participat-
ing in union activities does not insulate him from
discharge ...
On the other hand, the cases are legion that the
existence of a justifiable ground for discharge will not
prevent such discharge from being an unfair labor
practice if partially motivated by the employee's pro-
tected activity; a business reason cannot be used as a
pretext for discriminatory firing.... The test is
whether the business reason or the protected union
activity is the moving cause behind the discharge ...
In other words, would this employee have been dis-
charged butfor his union activity?
The fact that an employer may be hostile toward employ-
ees who engage in union or other protected activities does
not in itself insulate an employee from discharge where that
employee engages in conduct for which he would have been
discharged with or without the protected activity. In P. G.
Berland Paint City. Inc., 199 NLRB 927, 928 (1972), enfd.
478 F.2d 1405 (7th Cir. 1973), the Board held:
1354
INTERNATIONAL MEDICATION SYSTEMS, LTD.
The mere fact that an employer may want to part
company with an employee whose union activities have
made him persona non grata does not per se establish
that a subsequent discharge of that employee must be
unlawfully discriminatory. If the employee himself
obliges his employer by providing a valid, independent
reason for his discharge-i.e., by engaging in conduct
for which he would have been discharged anyway-his
discharge cannot properly be labeled a pretext and
ruled unlawful.
In the instant case, Espinoza's union activity was limited
to the signing of a union authorization card, a fact brought
out when she testified at the earlier unfair labor practice
hearing. Respondent's hostility to the Union and the
employee organizers of the Union is clear from that decision.
On the other hand, it is also clear from the evidence in the
instant case that Espinoza was not an exemplary employee.
Thus, the evidence shows she was transferred from an
assembler job in building 3 to a janitorial job in building 7
because whe had been a slow worker; that she was
transferred from building 7 which was a critical area
requiring a high degree of cleanliness, to a janitorial job in
office buildings 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 because she was not
maintaining the degree of cleanliness required; and that she
was terminated on January 12, 1979, because she was not
doing a good cleaning job. The evidence convinces me, as the
Respondent contends, that Espinoza was placed into pro-
gressively easier jobs in an effort to find one she could
perform satisfactorily. While Espinoza testified her work
was never criticized, Hinderer testified that her first transfer,
from building 3 to building 7, was made because the director
of personnel complained she,was slow, and that when she
was transferred from building 7 by switching jobs with
Camarena, he told Espinoza that she was lazy and that her
new job would be easier. The substance of that conversation
was corroborated by Camarena, who testified she was also
told she was being sent to building 7 because the Company
needed to have it cleaner. Espinoza's attitude toward her job
is further clarified by statements she made to Camarena at
that time regarding certain aspects of the cleaning in
buildings 3, 8, 9, 10, II, and 12 that she would not do.
Finally, how well she cleaned in those buildings is made
clearer by Camarena's testimony that after Espinoza was
terminated it took her and Espinoza's replacement about 7
days to put those buildings back into a clean condition. She
testified that "everything was dirty," the "windows weren't
clean," the top and underneath the tables and desks were
dusty, and the bathrooms were "yellowish." She maintained
that the area had not been cleaned for a number of days.
Perhaps Espinoza's idea regarding how often it was neces-
sary to clean the offices may have been seen when, as she
told Arias she was going to take her 2 weeks vacation, she
stated that the Company could hire someone to pick up the
trash while she was gone and that "when I returned, I would
take care and clean everything." While the timing of
' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of the Rules
and Regulations of the National Labor Relations oard, the findings.
conclusions. and recommended Order herein shall. as provided in Sec. 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Htoard and become its
findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall hbe deemed
waived for all purxpose.
Espinoza's termination-a month after testifying-may ap-
pear suspicious, "mere suspicion cannot substitute for proof
of an unfair labor practice." Kings Terrace Nursing Home
and Health Related Facility, 229 NLRB 1180 (1977).
Under all the circumstances set forth above, I find that the
Respondent has rebutted the General Counsel's prima facie
case and that the General Counsel has not established by a
preponderance of the evidence that Espinoza's discharge was
causally connected to her union activity or the fact she
testified at the earlier unfair labor practice hearing. The
evidence, when viewed as a whole, does not establish that the
reasons advanced by Respondent for the discharge were
pretextual or that Espinoza's union interests or unfair labor
practice trial testimony was even a partial moving cause of
the discharge. I shall therefore recommend that paragraph 7
of the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
CONCLUSIONS Of LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By interrogating an employee about her involvement
with the Union and by threatening reprisal for being
involved with the Union, Respondent engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER'
The Respondent, International Medication Systems, Ltd.,
South El Monte, California, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating employees about their involvement with
the Union and threatening reprisal for being involved with
the Union.
(b) 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
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its South El Monte, California, place of
business copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix.""
Copies of the notice, on forms to be provided by the
Regional Director for Region 21. after being duly signed by
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
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
'" In the event that this Order is enfirced by a Judgment of a Uniled State.
Court of Appeals. the words in the notice reading "Potcl h Order of the
National Labor Relalions Board" shall read "PtoCed Pt'ruanlt o a Judgment
of the United State. Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board.
1355
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that paragraph 7 of the
complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
1356