One Stop Immigration & Education

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 30, 1999

330 N.L.R.B. 413 (N.L.R.B. 1999)

ONE STOP IMMIGRATION & EDUCATION CENTER 413
One Stop Immigration and Education Center, Inc.
and International Union of Electronic, Electri-
cal, Salaried, Machine and Furniture Workers,
AFL–CIO, District 11 and Hector Alvarado.
Cases 21–CA–32068 and 21–CA–32280
December 30, 1999
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN TRUESDALE AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND BRAME
On February 16, 1999, Administrative Law Judge
Mary Miller Cracraft issued the attached decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the
General Counsel filed an answering brief, and the Re-
spondent filed a reply brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and conclusions and
to adopt the recommended Order as modified below.2
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent, One
Stop Immigration and Education Center, Inc., Los Ange-
les, California, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modi-
fied.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a).
“(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer
Hector Alvarado and Gumaro Oviedo-Flores full rein-
statement to their former jobs or, if those positions no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, with-
out prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or
privileges previously enjoyed.”
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the admin-
istrative law judge.

1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility
findings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an adminis-
trative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance
of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Stan-
dard 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.
2 We shall modify the recommended Order to provide the usual rein-
statement remedy for employee Gumaro Oviedo-Flores. In compliance,
the Respondent will have the opportunity to prove that Gumaro
Oviedo-Flores is not entitled to reinstatement because of alleged mis-
conduct occurring after his unlawful discharge. See Marshall Durbin
Poultry Co., 310 NLRB 68, 70 (1993), enfd. in pertinent part 39 F.3d
1312 (5th Cir 1994). As stated by the judge, this issue was not fully
litigated at the hearing.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to
post and abide by this notice.

Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protection
To choose not to engage in any of these protected
concerted activities.

WE WILL NOT interrogate you about activities on behalf
of the International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Sala-
ried, Machine and Furniture Workers, AFL–CIO, District
11, threaten you with unspecified reprisals unless you
cease engaging in union activities, and offer to reinstate
an employee if the employee stops engaging in union
activities.
WE WILL NOT transfer or discharge you because you
engage in union or protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of your rights
pursuant to Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, offer Hector Alvarado and Gumaro Oviedo-Flores
full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, with-
out prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or
privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make Hector Alvarado and Gumaro Oviedo-
Flores whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits
suffered as a result of their discharges, less any net in-
terim earnings, plus interest.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, remove from our files any reference to the unlaw-
ful transfer and discharge of Hector Alvarado and the
unlawful discharge of Gumaro Oviedo-Flores, and WE
WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify each of them in
writing that this has been done and that the transfer and
discharges will not be used against them in any way.

ONE STOP IMMIGRATION AND EDUCATION
CENTER, INC.

330 NLRB No. 68
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 414

Eric M. Carr, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Alfred Klein, Esq. (Klein & Rosenbaum), of Glendale, Califor-
nia for the Respondent.
Jaime P. Martinez, Secretary-Treasurer, for the Union.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARY MILLER CRACRAFT, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was tried in Los Angeles, California, on July 21–24 and
28–30, 1998. The charge in Case 21–CA–32068 was filed by
International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, Machine
and Furniture Workers, AFL–CIO, District Eleven (the Union)
on May 21, 1997.1 The charge in Case 21–CA–32280 was filed
by Hector Alvarado on September 18. The consolidated com-
plaint was issued January 30, 1998. The complaint alleges the
unlawful transfer and termination of Hector Alvarado, the un-
lawful termination of Gumaro Oviedo Flores, and several
threats, an interrogation, and an unlawful offer of reinstatement
conditioned on cessation of union activities.
All parties were afforded full opportunity to appear, to intro-
duce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to argue the merits of their respective positions. On
the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of
the witnesses,2 and after considering the briefs filed by counsel
for the General Counsel and for Respondent, I make the follow-
ing
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION AND LABOR ORGANIZATION STATUS
Respondent is a not for profit California corporation provid-
ing social services. It has facilities in the States of Washington,
Oregon, and California. In the Los Angeles area, its main office
is located at 3600 Whittier Boulevard. During the 12-month
period ending December 31, 1997, a representative period,
Respondent received gross revenues in excess of $250,000 and
purchased goods and services which originated outside the
State of California but were purchased within the State from a
vendor who received such goods or services directly from out-
side the State. Respondent admits and I find that it is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that the Union is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
1. Background
Respondent provides immigration and naturalization services
in the greater Los Angeles area where it maintains several fa-
cilities including Rancho Dominguez, Cesar Chavez, Long
Beach, and Whittier Boulevard, the main facility. Juan Jose
Gutierrez has been executive director for about 13 years. Dur-
ing the relevant time period Martha Sanchez was program man-

1
All dates are in 1997 unless otherwise indicated.
2 Credibility resolutions have been made based on a review of the
entire record and all exhibits in this proceeding. Witness demeanor and
inherent probability of the testimony have been utilized to assess credi-
bility. Testimony contrary to my findings has been discredited on some
occasions because it was in conflict with credited testimony or docu-
ments or because it was inherently incredible and unworthy of belief.
ager and functioned as controller and her husband, Jose Jacques
(Pepe) Medina, was associate director.
In general, the board of directors and its executive director
consider themselves pro-organized labor. Many of their activi-
ties are coordinated with labor organizations and some of the
members of the board of directors are affiliated with labor or-
ganizations. In March 1997, the Union began an organizational
campaign. Initially the Union was allowed to meet with em-
ployees at the main facility. In April, Office and Professional
Workers International Union, Local 537, AFL–CIO began a
campaign. A Stipulated Election Agreement was executed on
April 29, 1997. Both Unions appeared on the ballots which
were mailed on May 19. As a result of the election, the Union
was certified to represent a wall to wall unit of Respondent’s
employees. Although negotiations were contentious at times,
Respondent and the Union eventually executed a collective-
bargaining agreement.
2. Gumaro Oviedo-Flores
In February 1990, Gumaro Oviedo-Flores began working for
Respondent as a file clerk. He was discharged on April 28,
1997. His position at that time was program analyst which in-
volved handling immigration cases and performing some com-
puter and accounting functions. His immediate supervisor was
Martha Sanchez. During the fall of 1996, Executive Director
Gutierrez was in Washington, D.C. During his absence, San-
chez and Medina were in charge.
On September 21, 1996, Sanchez suspended Oviedo-Flores
for 1 week and then transferred him to the Rancho Dominguez
facility. This discipline was imposed for engaging in a fight
with coworker, Eduardo Castro. The fight occurred at the Whit-
tier facility, where both employees worked, on September 18,
1996. During the course of the fight, Oviedo-Flores bit Castro’s
thumb and butted Castro’s nose with his head. Castro pulled
Oviedo-Flores’ hair. They exchanged punches.
Sanchez interviewed Oviedo-Flores before imposing the dis-
cipline. Oviedo-Flores and Castro testified substantially in
agreement to the details of the fight. Castro added that his nose
bled “a lot” and required three trips to the hospital. In any
event, both Castro and Oviedo-Flores agreed that the fight was
provoked by a remark Castro made about Oviedo-Flores’ wife.
Sanchez told Oviedo-Flores that the remark was insufficient
reason to engage in a fight.3 In mid-January 1997, Oviedo-
Flores was transferred back to the Whittier facility after confer-
ring with Castro to ensure that he was comfortable in Oviedo-
Flores’ presence, providing an apology letter to his coworkers,
and agreeing to a 4- to 5-month probation.4
3 The employee warning notice stated that the violation was severe.
Even though there had been no prior discipline of Oviedo-Flores, this
warning was given as a third warning. Should the incident occur again,
Oviedo-Flores was warned that he would be discharged. However, the
warning notice continues, because there were no known prior offenses,
because Castro decided not to prosecute, and because Oviedo-Flores
was a committed worker, he was not discharged immediately.
4 Castro disagreed with these facts. He stated that Oviedo-Flores was
in Rancho Dominguez for only a few weeks and then began working at
Whittier Boulevard again. He testified that he told Sanchez that this
made him uncomfortable. I discredit Castro’s testimony in this regard.
Castro was not able to place dates very well and it was necessary for
counsel to lead him in order to elicit testimony. Moreover, the memo-
randum of apology written by Oviedo-Flores on January 23, 1998,
corroborates his testimony that he transferred back to Whittier around
that date.
ONE STOP IMMIGRATION & EDUCATION CENTER 415
According to Gutierrez, he did not learn of the fight between
Oviedo-Flores and Castro until early March when his brother
Zeke called to complain about another matter involving Re-
spondent and mentioned the fight. Zeke told Gutierrez to ask
their cousin Emilia Arellano, who worked for Respondent, for
the details. In mid-March, when Arellano came to his office to
discuss a personal matter, Gutierrez questioned her about the
fight. He explained that he did not speak with her sooner after
learning of the fight in early March because he, “was involved
doing any number of other things, including probably having to
go to Sacramento on funding matters.” Through Arellano,
Gutierrez confirmed his brother’s news about the fight and
immediately contacted Mario Vasquez, president of the board,
and related the events of the September 18, 1996 fight. Vasquez
told Gutierrez that he thought this was a very serious problem
due to potential liability. Gutierrez promised to keep Vasquez
informed.
I do not credit Gutierrez, testimony regarding the timing of
his knowledge of the fight. It is true that he was in Washington,
D.C., when the fight occurred. However, he was in daily touch
with his office during his absence. He most often spoke with
Sanchez and Medina. Neither of these witnesses testified.
However, three witnesses credibly testified that they discussed
the fight with him prior to March. Maria Leticia Urias who
functioned as receptionist during September and October 1996,
spoke with Gutierrez who told her that he knew about the fight
between Oviedo-Flores and Castro and everything had been
taken care of. According to Urias, on Gutierrez’ return in No-
vember 1996 he stated basically the same thing.5
Andres Gonzales, counselor in the Cesar Chavez office, had
a conversation with Gutierrez in November. They initially
spoke about the march in Washington, D.C. Then Gutierrez
asked Gonzales what he knew about the fight between Oviedo-
Flores and Castro. Gonzales responded that he knew as much as
Gutierrez in that he was not present during the fight. Rather, he
was at the Cesar Chavez facility when it happened.
According to Irma Torres, in 1996 or January 1997,
Gutierrez came to her home to drop off a mutual friend, Fran-
cisco Barbla Alejandre. While Gutierrez was there, he told
Torres that Oviedo-Flores had fought with Castro and, as a
consequence, Oviedo-Flores had been transferred to Rancho
Dominguez. Torres opined that this seemed more like a reward
than a penalty because Rancho Dominguez was a very well run
office.6

5 Urias resigned her employment with Respondent after being ac-
cused of stealing files. Urias believed that the accusation was unjust.
She filed an unfair labor practice charge because she thought the accu-
sation was due to her union activity. Urias stated that she was ex-
tremely upset about being terminated. Urias’ daughter was also termi-
nated by Respondent in April 1998. Urias was upset by this as well
because she did not believe it was fair. After Urias was terminated, she
began a business dealing with immigration and income tax. Her busi-
ness is located in Downey, California. Urias impressed me as a truthful
witness. She admitted she was upset when she was fired. However, I do
not find that this biased her testimony.
6 Alejandre testified that he recalled being dropped off by Gutierrez
but he disagreed that Torres and Gutierrez spoke about Oviedo-Flores.
He testified that he was present during their entire conversation and at
no time was Oviedo-Flores discussed. I credit Torres over Alejandre
regarding this conversation. Torres impressed me as an especially
credible witness who had no reason to embellish or manufacture testi-
mony. Alejandre, on the other hand, currently is employed by Respon-
dent and shares a home with its executive director. I also view with
On March 21, Oviedo-Flores and others recommended to the
board of directors that Executive Director Gutierrez be dis-
charged. The basis for this recommendation was, “his lack of
respect to the charge that has been given [him], acting in an
irresponsible manner and alienated in playing a consequent role
with the movement and the fight for our community.” The rec-
ommendation further noted repeated instances of abuse of em-
ployees.
At the next board meeting, on March 27, Gutierrez informed
the entire Board of the Oviedo-Flores/Castro fight. He was
instructed by the Board to make a thorough investigation and
report back at the next board meeting.
On April 9, Oviedo-Flores signed a union authorization card.
He was an open and active union advocate in that he distributed
authorization cards to other employees, discussed the Union
with other employees, wore union buttons, caps, and T-shirts,
and had a bumper sticker on his car and office door. Many em-
ployees in addition to Oviedo-Flores had union bumper stickers
on their cars and office doors. Six or seven other employees
wore union insignia to work.
On April 22, Gutierrez sent a memorandum to Sanchez ask-
ing for a report about the fight. He explained that the delay
between being directed on March 27 to investigate and April
22, when he began investigating, was “probably” because he
had to deal with fiscal and grant matters and was in Sacramento
a great deal of time. Gutierrez’ calendar reflects that in March
and April, he took four business trips. In addition, the board
directed him on March 27 to find a forensic accountant to look
into allegations of misappropriation of funds on the part of
Sanchez and Medina. This also occupied his time.
On April 22, Oviedo-Flores received a letter from Executive
Director Gutierrez stating that he had recently learned of an
altercation between Oviedo-Flores and Castro. Gutierrez re-
quested that Oviedo-Flores inform Gutierrez in writing regard-
ing the details of the altercation no later than April 24, the date
of the next board of directors meeting. Oviedo-Flores re-
sponded stating that he believed it was very suspicious that
Gutierrez was only now investigating a well-known altercation.
He suggested that it was because of union activities that Gutier-
rez was interested in the altercation and referred Gutierrez to
his personnel file for further explanation. Gutierrez assisted
Castro in writing the details of the fight in a memorandum
dated April 24. Oviedo-Flores was discharged on April 28 for
engaging in the altercation with Castro.
The board of directors was consulted throughout the process
of investigating the fight in April. They fully supported Gutier-
rez’ decision to discharge. At the time of the discharge, the
board of directors was aware that Oviedo-Flores was involved
in organizing the Union. One of the members of the board,
Fabian Nunez, was aware of the fight because he had heard
about it in talking with employees of Respondent. He could not
remember when he learned of the fight. However, there is no
dispute that board members were aware that the fight had not
been a recent fight.
Irma Torres recalled a telephone conversation with Gutierrez
in May7 in which Gutierrez asked Torres whether Oviedo-

skepticism his assertion that he heard every word spoken during the 15-
minute conversation among four individuals.
7 Although Torres asserted that the conversation was in May, it was
in connection with hiring a forensic accountant to look into matters of
alleged financial wrongdoing by Sanchez and Medina. I note that the
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 416
Flores would be able to file an NLRB charge if Gutierrez dis-
charged him. Torres asked what the reason for discharge would
be. Gutierrez responded that the fight was the reason. Torres
advised Gutierrez that she thought it would look very suspi-
cious due to the union organizing campaign. Gutierrez re-
sponded that he would tell the NLRB that he had just learned of
the fight. He further stated that he did not believe that Oviedo-
Flores and Alvarado were loyal to him because they were sup-
porting Martinez’ union.
I do not credit Gutierrez’ testimony that he learned of the
fight from his brother in March. Although Gutierrez was an
articulate, intelligent witness, it strains belief to find that after
consulting the office daily during his absence in the fall of
1996, he was not informed of the fight at headquarters. Numer-
ous witnesses testified credibly that Gutierrez was aware of the
fight long before the spring of 1997. In addition, neither
Gutierrez brother nor cousin was called to corroborate his tes-
timony. Moreover, even were I to credit Gutierrez’ version of
the timing of his knowledge regarding the fight, his delay in
acting on the information until after the advent of union activity
at the facility suggests that the timing of his knowledge of the
fight was inconsequential while the timing of learning of union
activity directly correlates to the discharge of Oviedo-Flores.
3. Hector Alvarado
Hector Alvarado began working for Respondent in 1986 and
was discharged on May 28, 1997. At the time of his discharge,
he was site director at the Rancho Dominguez facility. Accord-
ing to Alvarado, his duties consisted of opening, closing, and
cleaning the facility, assisting customers, answering the phone,
attending citizenship fairs, and taking reports and revenue to
the central office. Alvarado was considered by management to
be somewhat obnoxious and confrontational throughout his
employment. The president of the board of directors stated he,
“had a history of basically ignoring the board and being totally
insubordinate.” Alvarado had never been disciplined for these
actions.
In March, Alvarado distributed authorization cards and dis-
cussed unionization openly with other employees at the Rancho
Dominguez facility and at the Whittier Boulevard office. Cesar
Chavez, site director, Rudy Sanchez recalled that Alvarado
came to his home several times to discuss the Union.8

board requested that Gutierrez find such an accountant at their meeting
in March.
8 Important to Respondent’s defense is the additional fact that San-
chez testified that Alvarado was accompanied by Associate Director
Pepe Medina on these occasions. Sanchez testified that on an unspeci-
fied date, Alvarado and Medina came to his home to discuss the Union,
“But I think that they had a—I felt that they had another ulterior
movement, you know, motive that. . . . I guess they wanted me to go
against the administration which I didn’t think it was necessary.” Later
Sanchez said, “Well, it seemed to me that there was a power struggle,
you know, that was being headed by Pepe at that time.” Counsel for the
General Counsel strenuously objected to this testimony as hearsay,
because it lacked foundation, and because it constituted subjective
opinion. The testimony was admitted to show it was said (to the extent
actual conversation was part of the testimony) but not for the truth of
the matters asserted therein. In later general testimony, Sanchez re-
sponded affirmatively to, “In your experience with [Alvarado and
Oviedo-Flores] during this period and afterwards, did they continue to
attack Juan Jose Gutierrez personally?” I do not give the totality of this
testimony any weight due to the vague generalities and subjective con-
clusions elicited by leading questions.
a. Alleged interrogation
On April 21, Alvarado attended a meeting in the independ-
ence room at the Whittier Boulevard office. Gutierrez asserted
to the approximately 20 assembled employees, according to
Alvarado, that they were being deceived by the Union. Gutier-
rez told employees there was a better union. He also asked
employees who was on the organizing committee for the
Union. Alvarado responded that this was always the first ques-
tion asked by management during a union campaign and the
purpose was not to award prizes but to fire the members of the
committee. Gutierrez responded that he had a right to know.
Another employee, Rafael Barajas, asked Gutierrez if he was
prounion. Gutierrez responded that he was prounion but when
asked further whether he would sign a union contract, Gutierrez
stated that he would not. Rafael Barajas and Andres Gonzales
corroborated Alvarado’s testimony regarding interrogation at
this meeting.9 Gutierrez denied that he ever supported one un-
ion over the other. However, he did not deny requesting the
names of the organizers.10
In mid-April, Alvarado requested vacation leave to begin on
April 28 and conclude on June 6. During this time, Alvarado
intended to work at the Whittier Boulevard office at the request
of personnel there who needed his assistance for disabled citi-
zenship applicants. His vacation request was approved by Me-
dina. In about mid-May, Gutierrez asked Alvarado why he was
working at the Whittier Boulevard facility. Alvarado explained
that he was helping with disabled citizenship applications.
By memorandum of May 19, Alvarado and 22 other employ-
ees petitioned the board of directors for specific solutions to
various work place problems. One of the solutions sought was a
collective-bargaining agreement with the Union. Another was a
full investigation of allegations of sexual harassment by
Gutierrez. The board of directors responded, specifically ad-
dressing the response to Yolanda Santoyo and Hector Alvarado.
The response indicated that it would be unlawful to bargain
with the Union until it was certified. As to the remaining “gro-
cery list,” the board of directors declined to accommodate the
request because their agenda was too lengthy already. The re-
sponse also indicated that Alvarado’s presence at the meeting
was urgently required because he allegedly signed a lease for a
new facility at Rancho Dominguez without board or executive
director approval.
9 Barajas was discharged on December 19, 1997. He was angry
about his discharge and believed that it was unfair. However, I do not
find that this anger influenced his testimony regarding the April 21
meeting, or his later testimony about the May 27 meeting. Barajas
appeared to be a straight forward, credible witness.
10 Respondent presented witnesses Rudy Sanchez, Juanita Quintaro,
and Graciela Gonzales, all of whom recalled the same meeting in the
independence room. Sanchez testified that Alvarado and others were
disruptive during the meeting. They yelled requests that Gutierrez
recognize the Union. According to Sanchez, Gutierrez responded that it
was up to the workers to choose the Union. According to Sanchez,
Quintaro, and Gonzales, Gutierrez did not express any preference for
one union over the other during this meeting. However, none of them
testified regarding whether the alleged interrogation occurred. Because
there is no direct conflict in the testimony of the General Counsel’s and
Respondent’s witnesses on the alleged interrogation, it is unnecessary
to resolve the credibility conflict regarding preference of one union
over another.
ONE STOP IMMIGRATION & EDUCATION CENTER 417
b. Alleged threat of unspecified reprisals
On May 22, Alvarado and Andres Gonzales, a fellow em-
ployee, spoke with Gutierrez by the water fountain at the Whit-
tier Boulevard facility. According to Alvarado and Gonzales,
Gutierrez stated that he was tired of the union campaign and if
Alvarado did not halt the campaign, Gutierrez was going to
“fuck”11 him. Alvarado responded that Gutierrez was not sup-
posed to intimidate employees. Gonzales joined Alvarado, tell-
ing Gutierrez that his comment was a violation. Gutierrez told
Gonzales he was not speaking to him. Gonzales corroborated
Alvarado’s testimony regarding this conversation. Gutierrez
did not deny this conversation.
c. Alleged unlawful transfer
On Friday, May 23, Gutierrez told Alvarado that he was
sending him to the Long Beach office. Alvarado protested that
he was on vacation. Gutierrez reiterated that he was ordering
Alvarado to report to the Long Beach office on Monday. Alva-
rado told Gutierrez he thought he was being sent to Long Beach
because of the Union. Gutierrez did not respond.
At 9 a.m. on Memorial Day, Monday, May 26, Alvarado re-
ported to the Long Beach facility. Long Beach is staffed by
volunteers who are not Respondent’s personnel and the facility
does not have uniform opening and closing times according to
Alvarado. At 9 a.m., when Alvarado arrived, the facility was
closed. He testified that he remained outside for 2 hours. When
no one arrived, he left and returned the following day at 9 a.m.
and again waited for 2 hours and no one arrived.
d. Alleged threat of unspecified reprisals
At this point, Alvarado went to the Whittier Boulevard facil-
ity and spoke with Gutierrez at about noon.12 Gutierrez inquired
why Alvarado was not at Long Beach. Alvarado retorted that
Long Beach was not open. Gutierrez called the facility and then
accused Alvarado of lying, stating that Alvarado had not been
at Long Beach.13 Alvarado protested that he had reported to
Long Beach. Gutierrez said that he was, “getting tired of all
this. If you don’t behave about everything that is happening
something can happen to you.” Alvarado asserted that Gutierrez
was threatening him. Gutierrez responded that he had had
enough and would take Alvarado to Long Beach himself. Alva-
rado declined the invitation stating that he did not want to ride
with Gutierrez in light of the threat. Gutierrez told Alvarado to,
“get out of here.”
Maria da la Luz Quezada testified that she was a volunteer at
the Long Beach office. On May 27, Gutierrez told her that
Alvarado would be reporting to that office to assist them. On

11 This conversation was in Spanish. Alvarado testified that the par-
ticular epithet utilized, “is a dirty word like, something like fuck me but
not quite.”
12 Board Member John Fernandez testified that Alvarado and Felipe
Aguirre came to his office on May 27. He thought they arrived some-
time in the morning and stayed for about 15 minutes. The reason for
their visit was to protest Gutierrez actions regarding the Union and to
ask for his support. Fernandez’ testimony regarding their remarks was
extremely vague and he did not recall the time of day of their visit with
certainty. Nevertheless, Respondent claims, relying on this evidence,
that Alvarado could not have reported to Long Beach and also been in
Fernandez’ office. The evidence does not present as strong a case as
Respondent claims. I cannot make such a conclusion when it appears to
me that the two events are not mutually exclusive.
13 Gutierrez agreed that he had called the facility at 10:30 a.m. and
no one answered.
May 28, Gutierrez called and asked if Alvarado had reported.
Luz Quezada, who had gone to the bank for awhile that day,
conferred with two other associates who were present while she
was at the bank. She told Gutierrez that Alvarado had not re-
ported. Interestingly, according to Luz Quezada, the hours at
Long Beach are posted on the door. They are 11:30 a.m. to 7:30
p.m. However, there is no evidence that Alvarado saw this sign
and there is no evidence that Alvarado was told that Long
Beach differed from Whittier or Rancho Dominguez, both of
which open at 9 a.m. Luz Quezada recalled that she reported to
work on Monday, May 26, 1997 (Memorial Day) at 10 a.m. but
did not open until 11:30 a.m.14
On the following day, May 28, Gutierrez discharged Alva-
rado for insubordination in failing to report to Long Beach15
and in his dealings with Gutierrez and the board of directors.
The board of directors was aware of the decision to discharge
Alvarado and was aware that Alvarado was a unionist. Alva-
rado had never been disciplined prior to this time.16 According
to Gutierrez and board member, John Fernandez, who was pre-
sent at the time when Alvarado received his discharge notice,
Alvarado threw the discharge notice on Gutierrez’ desk and
told Gutierrez that he was not God and could not decide
whether to discharge Alvarado.
e. Alleged offer to reinstate if employee refrains from
union activity
A meeting followed between Jaime Martinez, secretary-
treasurer of the Union, Jose Jacques Medina, Andres Gonzales,
Alvarado, and Gutierrez. Martinez asked the reason for Alva-
rado’s discharge. Gutierrez responded that Alvarado had failed
to report to Long Beach. Martinez disagreed and told Gutierrez
he needed to reinstate Alvarado. Gutierrez responded that he
wanted to speak to Alvarado alone but since everyone was
present, he would tell them what he wanted to do:

I want to make a deal with you. We are going to draw a
document in which you will be resigning entirely but we are
not going to date it. If you behave and don’t campaign any
more I will put away that document and I will never take it
out. But if you don’t change and continue with your Union
campaign I will date it and make it effective.

Gutierrez asked Alvarado to think it over before responding.
However, Alvarado said he might as well sign his life away.
Alvarado, Martinez and Gonzales testified consistently regard-
ing this meeting.17 Gutierrez denied that he attempted to make a
14 In a second report dated February 13, 1998, Luz Quezada added
that Alvarado asked her to tell Gutierrez that he had reported to Long
Beach but she refused to state this to Gutierrez. I do not credit this
testimony or the testimony that the hours at Long Beach are posted and
regular. In any event, it is clear that Alvarado was unaware of any such
regular hours and it is also clear that Alvarado could easily have been
in the parking lot and Luz Quezada could have been totally unaware of
his presence if he did not repeatedly attempt to knock on the door.
15 Juanita Quintaro testified that she spoke to Alvarado after his dis-
charge and Alvarado told her that the reason he was discharged was
because he refused to apologize to Gutierrez. Alvarado asserted that
Gutierrez was told that Alvarado had not reported to Long Beach.
However, Alvarado told Quintaro that he did report to Long Beach.
16 Alvarado recalled that in 1990, a coworker reprimanded him for
his activities while filing.
17 Juanita Quintaro testified that Alvarado told her he could get his
job back if he apologized to Gutierrez for disrespecting him. According
to Quintaro, Alvarado said he would not apologize.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 418
deal. He recalled telling Alvarado that if the discharge being on
his record was a problem, Gutierrez would be willing to allow
Alvarado to resign. According to Gutierrez, Alvarado re-
sponded that he would not resign but he would be willing to
sign a blank sheet of paper. Gutierrez testified that at no time
did anyone raise the issue of Alvarado being on vacation. How-
ever, Gutierrez recalled another meeting at a later time when
Martinez told him that Alvarado had been on vacation when he
was discharged.18
At 6 p.m. on May 28, about 30 to 40 employees attended the
board of directors meeting at the Whittier Boulevard facility.
The employees were given a place on the agenda at 8 p.m. Ac-
cording to Alvarado, Barajas, and Gonzales, Yolanda Santoyo
asked Mario Vasquez, the president of the board, why the
board’s response to the May 19 memorandum signed by 23
employees was addressed only to her and Alvarado. Vasquez
responded that it was sent to them because they were the lead-
ers of the union campaign. Discussion ensued about the elec-
tion.19
B. Analysis
Before addressing the specific allegations involved herein, it
is necessary to resolve two arguments advanced by Respondent.
1. Credibility
Numerous credibility resolutions have been noted throughout
the recitation of facts. However, a few additional observations
are warranted. Respondent introduced payroll records that indi-
cated that Alvarado was not on vacation during the payroll
periods ending April 25, May 9 and 23. None of these records
indicated that Alvarado was paid vacation pay. The payroll
records for the period ending June 6 indicate that Alvarado was
paid vacation pay. Respondent argues, however, that Sanchez
submitted this vacation request following Alvarado’s discharge
in order to discredit Gutierrez. Neither Sanchez nor Medina
testified. I have only Respondent’s counsel’s assertion and his
leading questions to witnesses to rely upon in finding that there
was a scheme to get rid of Gutierrez and that Sanchez and Me-
dina spear headed this scheme and enlisted Alvarado and
Oviedo-Flores to that end. There is absolutely no evidence to
indicate that Sanchez submitted a vacation request form after
the fact in order to discredit Gutierrez. Respondent’s argument
is pure speculation. Accordingly, I find that Alvarado was on
vacation at the time of his discharge.
In addition, the payroll records indicate that Martha Sanchez
authorized a payment of accumulated sick leave to Alvarado in
the amount of $3480 on July 8. Similarly, payroll records indi-
cate that Oviedo-Flores was paid a bonus of $92, plus 96 hours
of accumulated sick leave, 80 hours of regular time, and 20
days of vacation during payroll periods following his discharge.
These payments were authorized by Sanchez. In all, the con-
troller who replaced Sanchez, Mario Villa, found about 10 in-
stances in which Sanchez had authorized payments of vacation
or sick pay to Alvarado, Oviedo-Flores, and others which Villa
believed were contrary to Respondent’s policies. Respondent
attacks the credibility of Oviedo-Flores, and Alvarado arguing

18 Gutierrez denied that he said he would take Alvarado back if he
would quit his union activities. I credit Alvarado, Martinez, and Gonza-
les regarding the meeting’s events.
19 During the course of the discussion, all parties agree that the
president of the board called Alvarado a “shit eater” on several occa-
sions.
that these payments were contrary to the policies manual which
specifically prohibits payment of accrued sick leave. Thus,
Respondent argues the testimony of Oviedo-Flores and Alva-
rado has been purchased by Sanchez and her husband Medina
in order to further their attempts to remove Gutierrez from his
position as executive director. Neither Sanchez nor Medina
testified. I refuse to speculate regarding the meaning of the
payments of sick leave. I specifically find that Respondent has
failed to prove any nexus between these payments and the tes-
timony of Oviedo-Flores and Alvarado.
As to the alleged sexual harassment on the part of Gutierrez,
Respondent introduced evidence that the employees who al-
leged such activity were very close friends of Sanchez. From
this evidence, Respondent argues that Oviedo-Flores and Alva-
rado should be discredited. Once again, I am unwilling to make
this leap of logic.
2. Alvarado’s duties as site director
As site director20 at Rancho Dominguez, Alvarado signed
employee timesheets in the space allotted for supervisors. He
permitted employees to leave work when personal emergencies
arose. However, in order to schedule time off, employees had to
contact the main office. Alvarado signed an employee change
form in the “originator” box requesting that a part-time clerk
become full time. Martha Sanchez signed in the box for “per-
sonnel.” In June 1995, Alvarado recommended an employee for
hire. The employee was hired. According to Alvarado, other
employees also effectively recommended hiring. He recalled
specifically that Felipe Aguirre recommended Alma Torres for
hire and she was hired. Alvarado also originated a check requi-
sition or pay advance request from Guadalupe Mora in March
1997. Alvarado’s name appears as supervisor on this requisi-
tion. It was approved by Medina.
In March, Alvarado signed a 1-year lease as “lessee” for
space to be occupied during that period by the Rancho Domin-
guez facility. He said that he and his coworkers knew that the
building they were previously occupying was going to be sold.
They found new space nearby but no one at the main office
would sign the lease so Alvarado signed it. Alvarado thought
that one of his coworkers negotiated the terms of the lease.
Alvarado or one of his coworkers thereafter requested the rent
money from the main office as it was due. These requests were
subject to approval at the main office. Alvarado’s presence was
later requested at a board of directors meeting in order to ex-
plain his unauthorized signature on the lease.
Alvarado reported to Martha Sanchez and Jose Jacques Me-
dina. He testified that he did not hire, fire, lay off, recall, disci-
pline, reward, promote, transfer, or assign work to employees.
He did not grant vacation requests or interview applicants.
Rudy Sanchez, another site director, testified that he also al-
lowed employees to leave work when necessary. He recom-
mended pay raises but there is no evidence whether the raises
were granted. He did not approve vacation schedules. However,
he did convey them to the main office.
Alvarado and all other site directors were included on the
Excelsior list provided for purposes of the election. Alvarado’s
ballot was challenged by Gutierrez on the basis of his termina-
tion. Other employees on the Excelsior list, Julio Lopez, Pedro
20 Until March 1995, Alvarado was classified as legal counselor. In
1995, he was advanced to site director II with an increase from $6.30
to $9.50 per hour.
ONE STOP IMMIGRATION & EDUCATION CENTER 419
de La Cruz, and Rudy Sanchez, were also site directors. Their
ballots were not challenged.
Gutierrez did not directly supervise the site directors until af-
ter Alvarado’s discharge. He stated that their duties included
collecting timecards, collecting funds and depositing the funds
in the bank, collecting requisitions for vacation, requesting
legal assistance, and taking materials back and forth to the main
office. Gutierrez testified that when he took over supervision of
site directors, that site directors could recommend specific indi-
viduals for employment or for termination, and supervise em-
ployees on a daily basis to make sure they reported to work,
performed their work, and provided proper service. Prior to and
since the time he took over site director supervision, Gutierrez
believed that recommendations of the site directors with regard
to discipline were usually followed.
Respondent argues from these facts that Alvarado was a su-
pervisor based on his high rate of pay, the fact that he was in
charge of a facility, he could grant time off and he could make
effective recommendations as to employment status.21 Factu-
ally, these assertions are flawed. It is impossible to compare
Alvarado’s rate of pay with other employees because that evi-
dence is not contained in the record. It does appear that Alva-
rado was the highest person in authority at the Rancho
Dominguez site. However, without other indicia of supervisory
authority, this factor alone cannot confer supervisory authority.
Finally, as to Alvarado’s ability to effectively recommend em-
ployee personnel actions, there is only one instance contained
in the record. It is impossible to find supervisory authority
based upon this one instance of effective recommendation. This
is especially true in light of the unrebutted assertion that other
employees made recommendations regarding hiring that were
effectively followed. Respondent has failed to show by a pre-
ponderance of the credible evidence that Alvarado was a super-
visor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.
3. Analytical Framework
In order to establish discriminatory motivation, the General
Counsel bears the initial burden of persuasion to show that
antiunion sentiment was a substantial or motivating factor in
the challenged employer decision. Traditionally, the elements
utilized by the General Counsel in satisfying his burden of per-
suasion are union activity, employer knowledge of the activity,
timing of the discipline or discharge in proximity to the activ-
ity, and employer animus. The burden of persuasion then shifts
to the employer to prove its affirmative defense that it would
have taken the same action if the employee had not engaged in
protected activity. If the employer produces such evidence, the
General Counsel may rebut with evidence that the alleged dis-
crimination would not have taken place in the absence of the
protected activity.22
4. Arguments
Counsel for the General Counsel asserts that he has shown
direct knowledge of union and protected activity on the part of

21 Respondent also relies on the fact that Alvarado signed a lease on
Respondent’s behalf to support a finding of supervisory status. As to
this factor, the record does not indicate that Alvarado possessed any
such authority. Rather, the record indicates that Alvarado was called
before the board of directors to explain his unauthorized action.
22 Manno Electric, 321 NLRB 278 (1996); Wright Line, 251 NLRB
1083, 1089 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455
U.S. 989 (1982); approved in NLRB v. Transportation Management
Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (1983).
Oviedo-Flores and Alvarado as well as animus towards that
activity. Specifically, counsel notes that Gutierrez did not dis-
pute that he told Torres that Oviedo-Flores and Alvarado were
not loyal to him because they were supporting the Union. The
timing of the investigation of Oviedo-Flores’ 7-month old fight,
1 day after a meeting at which Gutierrez interrogated employ-
ees about the union organizing committee, is also suspicious
according to counsel and he asserts that an inference is sup-
ported that union activity was actually the cause for the investi-
gation. Finally, counsel notes that Respondent assisted em-
ployee Castro in reducing his version of the fight to written
form but did not even look at Oviedo-Flores’ personnel file, to
which Oviedo-Flores referred the board for details of his sus-
pension and transfer following the fight.
Counsel for the General Counsel also contends that Alva-
rado’s transfer and discharge were unlawfully motivated. On
May 22, Gutierrez told Alvarado that he was tired of his union
activity. On May 23, he told Alvarado to report to the Long
Beach facility. That facility is staffed solely by volunteers. This
transfer removed Alvarado from Whittier Boulevard and Ran-
cho Dominguez, where Alvarado had openly organized on be-
half of the Union. Counsel relies upon the timing of the trans-
fer, following closely on the heels of the threat regarding union
activity, to support a nexus between the two events. Counsel
also claims support from Alvarado’s 12-year work record with-
out incident of discipline and the failure of Respondent to con-
duct an investigation into the alleged failure to report to Long
Beach.
Respondent characterizes this dispute as “wholly unrelated in
any substantive manner to the issue of anti-union animus.”
Respondent asserts that the entire controversy is capable of
explanation by looking beyond the framework of the Act to
issues of personal bias. Respondent claims that Associate Di-
rector Medina and Sanchez, his wife, enlisted the Union in
order to draw attention away from an investigation into their
financial wrongdoing. Creating a “web of loyalty” around
them, they caused the discriminatees herein to lie in order to
harm Executive Director Gutierrez.
Respondent contends that there is absolutely no evidence of
antiunion animus. Gutierrez allowed employees to campaign
openly and to use Respondent’s facilities for union activities.
Moreover, Respondent voluntarily agreed to an election, recog-
nized the winning Union, and successfully negotiated a con-
tract. The board of directors unanimously voted that it had no
objection to unionization of its employees. Prounion activists
were allowed to address the board of directors even though they
were not on the board’s meeting agenda. Moreover, Gutierrez’
business card notes that Respondent is a pro-organized labor,
nonprofit community organization. Finally, Respondent points
to the strong ties to organized labor among the members of its
board of directors.
Furthermore, assuming a prima facie case has been made,
Respondent argues that Alvarado would have been discharged
in any event on the basis of insubordination and lying. Re-
spondent relies specifically on Alvarado’s mocking and sarcas-
tic behavior, his failure to report to Long Beach, and its asser-
tion that Alvarado was not on vacation at the time of his dis-
charge.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 420
5. Analysis
I find that Gutierrez questioned employees about the identity
of union organizers,23 twice threatened Alvarado with unspeci-
fied reprisals in retaliation for his union activity, and agreed to
reinstate Alvarado only if he eschewed union activity. These
findings are based on the credibility resolutions set forth above.
In addition, I find that counsel for the General Counsel has
adduced substantial credible evidence that the discharge of
Oviedo-Flores and the transfer and discharge of Alvarado were
motivated by union animus. I note specifically that Oviedo-
Flores was discharged shortly after the advent of his open union
activity for a fight which he engaged in 7 months prior to that
time. Sanchez had already suspended and transferred Oviedo-
Flores at the time of the incident. As to Alvarado, I rely specifi-
cally on the fact that he was an outspoken, insubordinate em-
ployee for 12 years and was not disciplined in any way for his
behavior. With the advent of his union activity, he was trans-
ferred to a location away from other employees and then dis-
charged without investigation.
I find that neither of these discharges would have occurred in
the absence of the employees’ union activity. If Respondent
was seriously concerned about liability to its employees for
Oviedo-Flores’ fight, it would have consulted the personnel file
in order to ascertain what was done at the time of the fight. If
Respondent had really discharged Alvarado for failure to re-
port, it would have presented other witnesses from the Long
Beach facility to confirm the he was not present from 9 to 11
a.m. as he asserted. There is no evidence to indicate that
Gutierrez even attempted to ascertain what time Alvarado re-
ported to Long Beach and whether Luz Quezada looked outside
in the parking lot at any time between 9 and 11 a.m. Accord-
ingly, I find that Respondent has failed to show that either em-
ployee would have been discharged in any event.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By interrogating employees about their union activities,
threatening employees with unspecified reprisals unless they
ceased engaging in union activities, and offering to reinstate an
employee if the employee stopped engaging in union activities,
Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. By discharging Gumaro Oviedo-Flores and transferring
and discharging Hector Alvarado, Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and

23 Interrogation is not, by itself, a per se violation of Sec. 8(a)(1). In-
terrogation is coercive if, under all the circumstances, it reasonably
tends to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of
their Sec. 7 rights. Emery Worldwide, 309 NLRB 185, 187 (1993).
Under this totality of circumstances approach, such factors as whether
the interrogated employee is an open or active union supporter, the
background of the interrogation, the nature of the information sought,
the identity of the questioner, and the place and method of the interro-
gation are examined. Sunnyvale Medical Clinic, 277 NLRB 1217
(1985). In this instance, the head of the organization demanded of all
employees to know who the union leaders were. Under these circum-
stances, I find the interrogation coercive.
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
Respondent claims that Oviedo-Flores is not eligible for re-
instatement due to two incidents which occurred after his dis-
charge. I rejected evidence regarding these events but allowed
Respondent to elicit the evidence in the form of question and
answer offers of proof. The first incident was at the East Los
Angeles College gubernatorial debates shortly before the pri-
mary elections. According to Respondent’s witnesses, Oviedo-
Flores grabbed Gutierrez by the tie, shook him and yelled at
Gutierrez, calling him “puta,” “cabron” and “maricon.”24 A
security guard removed Oviedo-Flores.
The second incident occurred outside Respondent’s main of-
fices. Board Member Fabian Nunez was present for a press
conference organized by Jaime Martinez during negotiations
for a collective-bargaining agreement. Union picketers, includ-
ing Oviedo-Flores, were present. Oviedo-Flores approached
Nunez, raised his voice and challenged him to a fight by raising
his fists close to Nunez’ face and calling him a maricon and
stating that Nunez was being manipulated.
Because I heard this evidence in question and answer offer
of proof format and then rejected the offer of proof, counsel for
the General Counsel did not attempt to rebut any of the evi-
dence. Given Respondent’s actions in suspending and transfer-
ring Oviedo-Flores for a fight with a coworker and Respon-
dent’s enduring the insubordination of Alvarado for the entire
length of his employment, it is doubtful that Respondent will be
able to prove that it would have discharged Oviedo-Flores for
these incidents. Nevertheless, because the issue was not fully
litigated, I leave to the compliance phase of this proceeding the
issue of whether Oviedo-Flores should be reinstated. A provi-
sional order of reinstatement will be recommended as to
Oviedo-Flores.
Respondent, having discriminatorily discharged Gumaro
Oviedo Flores must offer him reinstatement providing that a
subsequent determination is made that he is entitled to rein-
statement. Respondent, having discriminatorily transferred and
discharged Hector Alvarado, it must offer him reinstatement.
Further, both employees must be made whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits, computed on a quarterly basis from
date of discharge to date of proper offer of reinstatement, less
any net interim earnings, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co.,
90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as computed in New Hori-
zons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended25
ORDER
The Respondent, One Stop Immigration and Education Cen-
ter, Inc., Los Angeles, California, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
24 According to one of Respondent’s witnesses, Rudy Sanchez, a
“maricon” is a sissy or homosexual. According to Kevin de Leon, an-
other of the witnesses, “maricon” means faggot or queer and is dis-
tinctly different than calling someone homosexual. In either event, both
men testified that such language constituted fighting words.
25 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
ONE STOP IMMIGRATION & EDUCATION CENTER 421
(a) Interrogating employees about their union activities,
threatening employees with unspecified reprisals unless they
ceased engaging in union activities, and offering to reinstate an
employee if the employee stopped engaging in union activities.
(b) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any em-
ployee for supporting International Union of Electronic, Elec-
trical, Salaried, Machine and Furniture Workers, AFL–CIO,
District 11, or any other union.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer Hector
Alvarado full reinstatement and offer Gumaro Oviedo-Flores
provisional reinstatement subject to a supplement proceeding to
their former positions of employment or, if those positions no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions without
prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges
previously enjoyed.
(b) Make Gumaro Oviedo-Flores and Hector Alvarado whole
for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result
of the discrimination against them, in the manner set forth in
the remedy section of the decision.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from
its files any reference to the unlawful transfer and discharges,
and within 3 days thereafter notify the employees in writing
that this has been done and that the discharges will not be used
against them in any way.
(d) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, make available
to the Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards, per-
sonnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to
analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Or-
der.
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cilities in the greater Los Angeles area copies of the attached
notice (in both English and Spanish) marked “Appendix.”26
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 21, after being signed by the Respondent’s au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent im-
mediately 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 al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event
that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent
has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its
own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and
former employees employed by the Respondent at any time
since April 21, 1997.

26 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”