La Reina, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 26, 1985

275 N.L.R.B. 1494 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

1494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
La Reina , Incorporated and Martha Ramos. Case
21-CA-23477
26 August 1985 -
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
HUNTER AND DENNIS
On 30 April 1985 Administrative Law Judge
Gerald A. Wacknov issued the attached decision.
The .Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting
brief, and the General Counsel filed limited excep-
tions. i
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a, three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light. of the exceptions and brief and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, fndings,2 and
conclusions only to the extent consistent with this
Decision and Order.3
ORDER
The' National Labor Relations Board orders that
the Respondent, La Reina, Incorporated, Los An-
geles, California, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall' -
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging employees or causing employees
to quit because they have given testimony in a pro-
ceeding before the National Labor Relations
Board.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7
of the Act. • '
- • 2. Take the following affirmative action neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer Martha Ramos immediate and full rein-
statement to her former job or, if that job no
longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to her seniority or any other
rights or, privileges previously enjoyed, and make
i i In accord with the General Counsel's. limited exceptions; we shall
order that the notice to employees be;posted in Spanish and English
2 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find-
ings The Board's established policy is not to -overrule an administrative
law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all
the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry
Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir 1951)
We have carefully examined .the record and find no'basis for reversing
the findings
a The judge's recommended Order directs the Respondent to cease and
desist from unlawfully interrogating and threatening employees -The
judge's decision and the record reveal no such actions and, therefore, we
shall delete that direction from the Order In addition, while we agree
that Ramos ' discharge violated Sec '8(a)(4) and ( 1), we find no evidence
that it also violated Sec 8(a)(3) Finally, we find it unnecessary to rely on
the judge's citation of Kogy's Inc, 272 NLRB 202 (1984)
her whole for any loss of earnings and other bene-
fits suffered as a result of the discrimination against
her, in the manner set forth in the remedy section
of the decision. -
(b) Remove from 'its file's any reference to the
unlawful discharge and notify Martha Ramos in
writing that this has been done and that the dis-
charge will not be used against her in any way.
. (c) Post at its Los Angeles, California facility
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."4
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 21, after being signed
by the Respondent's authorized representative,
shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon. receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive
days. in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent'
to, ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced,
or^ covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director in writing
within 20 days from the' date of this Order what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply.
4 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of
Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT discharge employees or cause em-
ployees to quit because they have given testimony
before the National Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer-
cise of the rights' guaranteed you by Section 7 of
the Act. -
WE WILL offer Martha Ramos immediate and
full reinstatement to her former job or, if that job
no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent posi-
tion, without prejudice to her seniority or any
other rights or privileges previously enjoyed and
WE WILL make her whole for any loss of earnings
- and other-benefits resulting from her discharge, less
any net interim earnings, plus interest.
275 NLRB No. 209
LA REINA; INC
WE WILL -notify Martha Ramos that we have re-
moved from our files any reference to her dis-
charge and that the discharge' will not be used
against her in any way.
LA REINA,'INCORPORATED
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GERALD A. WACKNOV, Administrative Law Judge.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing with respect to this, matter
was held before me in Los Angeles, California, on 12
and -13 February 1985. The initial charge was filed on 4
October 1984 by Martha Ramos, an individual
Thereafter, on 19 November 1984, the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 21 of the National Labor Relations Board
issued a complaint and notice of hearing alleging a viola-
tion by La Reina, Incorporated (Respondent) of Section
8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the National Labor Relations Act.
The parties were afforded a full opportunity to be
heard, to call, examine, and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce relevant evidence. Since the close of the
hearing, briefs 'have been received from the General
Counsel and counsel for Respondent.
On the entire record,' and based on my observation of
the witnesses and consideration of the briefs submitted, I
make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Respondent is a California corporation engaged in the
manufacture of flour tortillas, and operates a facility lo-
cated in Los Angeles, California. In the course and con-
duct of its business operations Respondent annually sells
and ships goods and products valued in excess of $50,000
directly to customers located outside the State of Califor-
nia.
It is admitted and I find that the .Respondent is, and
has been at all times material herein; - an employer en-
gaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)' of the
Act. ' -
- II. THE ALLEGED,UNFAIR•LABOR PRACTICES.-
A `The Issue - ' '
The principal issue raised,bv,,the pleadings; is whether
Respondent unlawfully terminated Ramos for giving.tes-
timony before the Board, or for engaging in union' or
other protected concerted activities. • - -
iB -The Facts:
Martha Ramos was employed by the R'espond'ent from
20 February 1980 until 3 'October- 1984.2'-Ramon was
' The General Counsel's unopposed motion to correct- transcript- is
granted
2 All dates or time periods are within 1984 unless otherwise specified
1495
called as a witness and testified adversely to Respondent
herein in support of the-allegations of a consolidated
complaint at an unfair labor practice proceeding before
the Board on 11 September in Cases 21-CA-22993, 21-
CA-23042, 21-CA-23069, 21-CA-23148, and 21-RC-
17354.3 Ramos again attended the Board, proceeding on
13 September. Thereafter, because of illness, Ramos was
off work until 30 September.-
Ramos testified that on' 30, September,. Alphonso
Robles, chief of quality control, came by her work sta-
tion "at up to three times." On these occasions he would
pass by'and then remain nearby for "a little while" ap-
pearing to observe her work. This was unusual, accord-
ing to Ramos, as Alphonso Robles would customarily
pass by her work area "once, no more" during the day,
and would not remain to observe. On the following day
Ramos again noticed that Alphonso Robles appeared to
be spending an inordinate amount of time near her work
station and, at. one point, when Ramos was asking a co-
worker whether she wanted to get a drink of water, Al-
phonso Robles cautioned Robles not to talk because she
was distracting the employees. Ramos said she was not
keeping her coworker's hands from moving,' but was
dust talking to her. Alphonso Robles replied that he was
merely advising her not to talk to any coworkers. He
had never so warned Ramos at any time prior to this.
In the process, of- making tortillas, raw dough will
sometimes fall onto, the, floor. • According to Ramos, -it
has been the established practice that when this happens
the employees will-pick up the dough, examine it, and if
it is not dirty or part of it is salvageable, the entire piece
of.dough or the salvageable part is-to be placed on a cart
for reprocessing. Unsalvageable dough is to be discarded
in other containers, located throughout the plant. In addi-
tion, Ramos has similarly-seen Alphonso Robles,'and also
her supervisor, Juventino Orozco, pick up dough from
,the floor in this ;manner and .place it in the. cart for re-
processing.
About 1 p.m. on 3 October, ; Ramos. picked up such a
piece of dough from the floor, combined it with other
dough that had previously, been placed in nearby trays,
and 'placed the large ball of dough,- weighing- between 1
and 2 pounds, on the cart. Alphonso Robles approached
and picked out some dough from the•cart•'that apparently
had some burned flour iinbedded`in it. As'other employ-
ees also place dough in the same cart, the dough that Al-
phonso Robles selected had -hot' necessarily been placed
there by Ramos:: Showing ' her , this: particular - piece; of
dough, Alphonso Robles cautioned Ramos that- _when-
ever she picked up such-dough, it was not,to -be put back
in the' cart 'but should be-thrown in-one-of- the :separate
-containers for' discarded' dough Ramos 'said' okay, and
Alphonso' Robles put,; the `dough iii the' waste container.
The record doe's not otherwise' reflect the issues in the- aforemen-
tioned'proceedmgs,'or the nature bf Ramos' testimony -
4 The transcript contains Ramos' testimony as "I answered' hiin -thai"I
was not holding my co-wdrke"r's'hands, iliat'I was Just talkmglto her" It
should be noted that most of the witnesses to this proceeding -testified
through interpreters, and often the translation appears to be quite literal
Thus,, the record indicates that Ramos was not intending to be flippant
toward Robles, but was merelytelling him th at she was' not interfering
with her coworker's production
1496 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
About 8 p . m that day , Daniel Robles, vice president
of Respondent , and the brother of Alphonso Robles,
called Ramos to his office . Alphonso Robles was also
present , Daniel Robles said there were problems. Ramos
asked whether there was a problem with her , and Robles
said that part of the problem was with her and that he
also had problems with the others. Daniel Robles said he
was giving her a warning to sign because of-the contami-
nated dough 'she placed in the cart that afternoon . There-
upon he handed her the warning , written in Spanish, and
told her, to read it and sign it.
Ramos was not given a copy of the warning and testi-
fied regarding its content and the ensuing events as fol-
lows:
Q. Can you tell us what it said?
A. Yes, it said Mr. Alphonso Robles saw Mrs.
-Martha Ramos pick up dirty dough off of the floor,
with that she was contaminating "whoever pur-
chased the tortillas and I was violating a La Reina
law and rules of public health and he had a number
there. That's all it said.
Q. Did Mr. Robles say anything to you when
you told him you would [not] sign that warning?
A. Yes, he told' me if I didn 't sign it, he would
take other measures. - " • -
- So, I asked him what were those and he an-
swered to sign - the paper 'otherwise I would punch
my card and I wouldn 't have my job anymore:
So I wanted to tell him that all the workers did
what I have done and he got up- from his chair and
he said he didn ' t care if other people did it or not,
to sign the paper or go home , punch my card and
go home , that he didn 't have anything else to talk
to me about
Q. So was anything else said at that point?
' A. ' No, I said what 's the use. He didn 't want to
listen , what could I do. I was not going to sign the
paper.
-Q Did you punch out then?
A. I left the office and I went to where my purse
was and Daniel kept following me up to where my
purse was. He went back with me and I went to
-punch my card out. He followed me. He followed
me all the way up until I left , excuse me , went out-
side..
Edel C. Cruz is currently employed by Respondent.
Cruz was working only about 3 or 4' feet away from
Ramos ' on '3 October and witnessed the aforementioned
incident. Ramos, according to Cruz, pickeded up a small
amount of dough that had -fallen on the floor between
the trays . She then combined it with other dough from
the trays and deposited the quantity of dough in the cart.
At this point Alphonso Robles approached her and told
her not to mix the dirty dough with the clean dough.
Ramos said ' okay Cruz corroborated Ramos' testimony
-regarding the practice of salvaging dough that falls on
the floor: If there is a substantial amount . of dirt on the
dough , it is to be thrown away , otherwise , it is to be
placed with the clean dough for- reprocessing. He has
seen Alphonso Robles salvage dough: in this manner.
Cruz further testified that upon Ramos' return to work
on 30 September, Alphonso Robles would appear to be
checking the machine near Ramos' work station more
frequently than was his past practice.
Maria Ramos, no relation to the Charging Party, is a
former employee of Respondent on a leave of absence as
of 1 February 1985, and has worked for the Respondent
over a 9 -year period . `She corroborated the- testimony of
Cruz and Martha Ramos regarding the policy of salvag-
ing-reusable dough that has fallen on the floor , testifying
that it is a common practice not only of all the employ-
ees but of the supervisors too. Maria Ramos is involved
in the consolidated Board proceeding described above.
Employee Beatriz Sanchez , who worked for Respondent
from June ' 1973 to 22 January 1984, testified similarly.
Sanchez is also a charging party in the aforementioned
Board proceeding , and is apparently alleged as a dis'cri-
%minatee therein. -
John Williams , director of the food and milk program
for the Los Angeles County Department of Health Serv-
ices, is responsible for the routine inspection of all food
manufacturing and processing plants in Los Angeles
County . Williams testified on-behalf of Respondent that
if a food manufacturer reprocessed dough which had
fallen on the floor , regardless of whether the dough was
clean or dirty , the manufacturer would be cited and ad-
vised to cease and desist from that practice immediately.
Juventino Orozco , a foreman , testified on behalf of Re-
spondent- that under no circumstances is dough to be re-
processed after it has fallen on the floor . Rather it is to
be discarded . Employees Zarina Morales and Clemencia
Arroyo , also called as witnesses by the Respondent , testi-
fied similarly.
Alphonso Robles, chief of quality control, testified that
his duties take him throughout the production area, and
that he is responsible for ensuring that the machinery5 is
operating correctly and that the employees are properly
performing their jobs . Alphonso Robles was not asked,
and therefore did not specifically deny, that he was
closely observing Ramos on her return to work, or that
he warned her about talking to her coworker . Thus, the
Respondent has proffered - no denial or explanation for
Alphonso Robles' apparent preoccupation with Ramos
on her return to work. Alphonso Robles testified , gener-
ally,' that on 3 October, at some unspecified time, he ob-
served Ramos picking up "something" (purportedly a
piece of dough with a dirty rag imbedded in it, infra)
from the floor and "deliberately " placing it in the cart
containing dough for reprocessing. He pulled out the
dough from the cart , showed it to Ramos, and said, "Do
you see what you did . . . . This is dangerous " Ramos
simply shrugged and smiled. Thereupon, he "immediate-
ly" reported the matter to Daniel Robles.
During the subsequent conversation in Daniel Robles'
office , according to Alphonso Robles, "Daniel made her
understand that it was very dangerous for the business,"
and told her something to the effect that "you are put-
ting me in a position that is very difficult. We cannot
5 Apparently there are 12 production lines, each with similar equip-
ment for producing tortillas
6 The record testimony of Alphonso Robles is abbreviated and not en-
tirely clear
LA REINA, INC
take the risk with you. . . Either you sign it [the warn-
ing notice] or -you will have to punch your card." Ramos
replied, "I would rather go." - ,
Daniel Robles testified that he,presented Ramos with
the -following written notice which he prepared about
6:30 or 7 p.m., shortly after Alphonso Robles reported
the matter to him and brought him a quantity of dirty
dough with a rag imbedded in it . The notice, translated
from,Spanish, states as follows:
Madame Martha R. Marquez' was apprehended by
Mr. Alfonso Robles (Controller of Quality) disobey-
ing Rule No. 15 of La Reina, Inc Picking up dough
from the floor (dirty and contaminated) in which
there was a piece of rag and she put this in the
clean dough for production. This is contrary to
safety of the public consumer.
/s/Daniel Robles
Mrs. Martha R Marquez
Chief of Personnel
Mr. Daniel "Robles
Further, Daniel Robles testified that he showed Ramos
the dough containing the dirty rag, and that Ramos ad-
mitted "she had committed that act, the mischievous
act." However, Daniel Robles denied that he terminated
Ramos. Rather, Ramos refused to sign the warning and
said she would rather leave. She also said, although
Daniel Robles testified that he heard this only "faintly,"
that he should "'pay attention carefully to what you're
doing. This can bring you some consequences."
JUDGE WACKNOV: Okay. Now, with regard to
Martha Ramos, when you saw this dough with the
rag in it, did you believe that she placed it there in-
tentionally?
THE WITNESS: Of course, yes, sir, that is what I
thought.
JUDGE WACKNOV- For what purpose would she
place it there intentionally, did you believe?
THE WITNESS: As that had happened, that bad
thing, that loss with this Company8-I had to think
first, immediately,' to the thought, she has the inten-
tion to harm us
JUDGE WACKNOV So, you believed she placed
this rag in the dough intentionally-
THE WITNESS Yes, sir
JUDGE WACKNOV:-to cause the Company liabil-
ity?
THE WITNESS: Of course, yes, I do believe it, and
she is capable of more, that person.
JUDGE WACKNOV: And what reason do you
think that she had to harm the Company?
THE WITNESS' I would like to repeat again, per-
haps someone counseled badly. I don't know-very
Apparently Martha Ramos is sometimes referred co as Martha Mar-
quez
a Robles was referring to the fact that in 1983 Respondent's insurance
carver paid a liability claim to one of Respondent's customers for food
contamination in the amount of 533,743 Robles believed this contamina-
tion was a deliberate act by "a person badly counseled, perhaps out of his
own thoughts "
1497
unstableness in the multitude there They are quite
unstable. They operate on the basis of their own
things. They are mischievous between companions,
to each other. Sometimes they do harm, also, to the
Company, with all intentions.
JUDGE WACKNOV. Martha Ramos had worked
there for about four-years, is that correct?
THE WITNESS: I believe so, yes.
JUDGE WACKNOV: Did -you have any problems
with her during those four years? -
THE WITNESS: At the beginning , no, sir. This
began' days afterward. The more her companions
were gathering up and then their unstableness. -
JUDGE WACKNOV. About what period of time
did this begin?
THE WITNESS: It could be two years back
Analysis and Conclusions
Respondent takes the position that Martha Ramos quit
her employment rather than sign a warning slip which
accused her of picking up dough contaminated with dirt
in'which a rag was imbedded, which she then combined
with clean dough for reprocessing. Moreover, both Al-
phonso and Daniel Robles believed that this' was a delib-
erate and intentional act undertaken by Ramos to cause
Respondent to incur liability or loss of customers.
Indeed, Daniel Robles testified that Ramos admitted that
she had committed "the mischievous act." Further,
Daniel Robles clearly admitted that Ramos was not ter-
minated for refusing to sign the warning. He also admit-
ted, inconsistently with his contention that- Ramos quit
and was not discharged, that Ramos was terminated for
her act of mischievousness.
I do not credit the testimony of Daniel Robles and I
conclude that Respondent's "dirty rag defense" is fabri-
cated of whole cloth. The record is devoid of evidence
showing that Ramos had been other than a-satisfactory
employee during her nearly 5 years of employment; nor
does the record demonstrate that she harbored animosity
toward Respondent Moreover, it defies credulity that
Daniel Robles would give Ramos the option of signing a
warning rather than simply summarily dismissing her for
what he deemed to be a deliberate and unconscionable
act intended to cause Respondent substantial adverse re-
percussions . Indeed, according to Daniel Robles, this
conduct was sufficiently serious to have warranted clo-
sure of the plant by the Department of Health Services.
Under the circumstances described by Daniel- Robles it is
inconceivable that he would procrastinate from 1 until 8
p.m., as I find, infra, before summoning her to the office
for discipline, thereby giving her the entire shift to con-
tinue her "mischievousness "- Finally, the testimony of
.Alphonso Robles does not corroborate that of Daniel
Robles. Thus, 'Alphonso Robles, during his abbreviated
account of the discharge meeting, did not testify that
Ramos was accused of any deliberate act of sabotage
and, most significantly, failed to corroborate Daniel
Robles' testimony that Ramos specifically admitted en-
gaging in such clearly unpardonable behavior.
I credit the testimony of Martha Ramos, Maria Ramos,
Beatriz Sanchez, and Edel Cruz. It is particularly note-
1498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
worthy that Cruz is a current employee who has not
been shown to have any reason to fabricate his testimony
and under such circumstances it is unlikely that his ac-
count of Respondent 's practice is deliberately false. See
Heritage Nursery Homes, 269 NLRB 230 (1984); Federal
Stainless Sink, 197 NLRB 489, 491 (1972); Gateway
Transportation Co., 193 NLRB 47, 48 fn. 12 (1971). Thus,
I find that the Respondent has established - the longstand-
ing and customary procedure whereby dough which has
fallen on the floor , provided it is not dirty or otherwise
unsalvageable , is to be combined with other dough for
reprocessing . I further 'find that , as the aforementioned
employees so testified , this common work practice is a
normal part of the employees ' daily routine , and the em-
ployees are merely following the identical examples of
their supervisors in this endeavor I do not credit those
current employees , called as witnesses by Respondent,
who testified to the contrary . Moreover , the testimony
of John Williams of the Los Angeles County Depart-
ment of Health Services , who testified that this practice
would be contrary to applicable health and sanitation
rules governing Respondent 's business , does little to es-
tablish what actually occurs at Respondent 's facility
when food and health inspectors are not present.
I credit the testimony of Ramos, corroborated by the
credible testimony of Cruz , and find that she was warned
by Alphonso Robles for an alleged rule infraction about
1 p.m. on 3 October . Thereafter , about 8 p . m., she was
called to Daniel Robles' office-and ordered , on threat of
discharge, -to sign a warning letter for engaging in .the
theretofore - customary and established work practice of
combining salvageable dough which has fallen to the
floor - with other dough for reprocessing.
Thus, the record establishes , and I find , that during the
4 days following her return to work after testifying con-
trary to Respondent 's interests in a consolidated Board
proceeding , Robles was subjected to -surveillance; her
conduct ' was carefully monitored to the extent that she
was cautioned ' about - even speaking to. any of her' co-
workers; she was unjustifiably reprimanded for picking
dough off the floor; and she was thereafter ordered to
sign a - document which accused her of contaminating the
food product by picking dough off the floor for reproc-
essing rather than , as Respondent contends , for also plac-
ing a dirty rag in such dough . Moreover, she was told to
sign the bogus warning on threat of discharge ,. clearly
contrary to Respondent 's admitted past practice of per-
mitting employees to refuse to sign warning notices with
impunity. ' , -
I am convinced " that the continual harassment of
Ramos was for the purpose of removing` her from Re-
spondent 's employ , either by terminating her or- causing
her to quit . It is clear that , had Ramos not 'quit, she
would have , been terminated . Thus, Daniel Robles : did
not testify that Ramos would not have been terminated
had she signed the warning. Rather , he clearly admitted
that the alleged offense of contaminating the. food prod-
uct warranted her. discharge ,, thereby, indicating that her
discharge was- a foregone - conclusion regardless 'of
whether or not she signed the notice . On the basis of the
foregoing , I find-that the working conditions imposed on
Ramos.were so difficult and unpleasant as to force her to
resign , and that this was Respondent 's intention. More-
over , it is clear that , had Ramos signed the warning, she
nevertheless would have been terminated forthwith.
Retaliation against Ramos because of her testimony at
the Board hearing and/or because of her-support of the
Union or employees involved therein is the only possible
rationale explaining Respondent 's persistent and blatant
harassment of Ramos. Therefore I find that Ramos was
terminated -or constructively discharged in violation of
Section 8 (a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act, as alleged. See
Kogy's Inc., 272 NLRB 202 (1984); Great Southern Con-
struction, 266 NLRB 364, 374-375 (1983); Hoern'er Wal-
dorf Corp., 227 NLRB 612 (1976); Algreco Sportswear Co.,
271 NLRB 499 (1984).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW- '
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
2. Respondent has violated Section 8 (a)(1), (3), and (4)
of the Act, by discharging or constructively discharging
employee Martha Ramos for giving testimony under the
Act, in •a prior Board proceeding , or for engaging in
other union or protected concerted activity
- 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
• practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent ,violated and is violat-
ing, Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act, I recommend
that it be required to cease and desist therefrom and
from in any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining , or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and take cer-
tain affirmative actioii ' described 'herein, it cludmg the
posting of an appropriate notice'
Having found that Respondent -unlawfully discharged
and thereafter failed and refused - to reinstate employee
.Martha Ramos, it is recommended that Respondent offer
'her immediate reinstatement to her former position with-
out loss of seniority or other benefits and make her
whole, with interest , for any- loss of, pay,she may have
suffered as a result of 'the discrimination against her.
Backpay is to be computed iii' the manner; prescibed in
F. W Woo'lworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 1(1950), and Florida
Steel Cor`p.1- 231 NLRB` 651 (1977) - See generally Isis
Plumbing Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962).-
IT.•IS ` ,FURTHER RECOMMENDED ' that iRespondent ex-
punge from its ' records' any, reference to; the. foregoing
unlawful discharge .and advise Martha Ramos that ,it has
done so. See Sterling Sugars, 261 NLRB 472-(1982)
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]