Owers Maintenance Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 19, 1977

232 N.L.R.B. 100 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Owners Maintenance Corp. and Thomas Soto. Case
2-CA-14044
September 19, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND MURPHY
On June 16, 1977, Administrative Law Judge
Lowell Goerlich issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, the General Counsel filed a
brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's
Decision and a letter in reply to Respondent's
exceptions, and the Charging Party filed a brief in
answer to Respondent's exceptions.
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, to
modify his Remedy,' and to adopt his recommended
Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Owners Mainte-
nance Corp., New York, New York, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order.
In accordance with our decision in Florida Steel Corporation, 231
NLRB 651 (1977), we shall apply the current 7-percent rate for periods prior
to August 25. 1977. in which the "adjusted prime interest rate" as used by
the Internal Revenue Service in calculating interest on tax payments was at
least 7 percent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LOWELL GOERLICH, Administrative Law Judge: The
charge filed by Thomas Soto on December 30, 1975, was
served by registered mail on the Owner's Maintenance
Corp., Respondent herein, by registered mail on or about
December 31, 1975. A complaint and notice of hearing was
I There being no opposition thereto, General Counsel's motion to correct
transcript is granted and the transcript is corrected accordingly.
2 The facts found herein are based on the record as a whole and the
observation of the witnesses. The credibility resolutions herein have been
derived from a review of the entire testimonial record and exhibits, with due
regard for the logic of probability. the demeanor of the witnesses, and the
teachings of N. L. R. B v. Walton Manufacturing Company & Loganville Pants
232 NLRB No. 23
issued on November 29, 1976. The complaint charged that
Thomas Soto and James Veve were discharged by
Respondent on July 3, 1975, because of their activities in
and support of Local 32B Service Employees International
Union, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 32B or the Union,
in seeking to enforce the Union's collective-bargaining
agreement with Respondent and because these employees
engaged in other concerted activity for the purpose of
collective bargaining and mutual aid and protection in
violation of Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, herein referred to as the Act.
Respondent filed a timely answer denying that it had
engaged in any of the unfair labor practices alleged.
The case came on for hearing at New York, New York,
on March 1, 2, 3, and 4, 1977. Each party was afforded a
full opportunity to be heard, to call, examine and cross-
examine witnesses, to argue orally on the record, to submit
proposed findings of fact and conclusions, and to file
briefs. All briefs have been carefully considered.'
FINDINGS OF FACT, 2 CONCLUSIONS, AND REASONS
THEREFOR
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein,
a corporation duly organized under, and existing by virtue
of, the laws of the State of New York.
At all times material herein, Respondent has maintained
its principal office and place of business at 426 Lexington
Avenue, in the city and State of New York, and various
other places of business in the State of New York,
including a location at 1 Penn Plaza, New York, New
York, where it is, and has been at all times material herein,
continuously engaged in providing cleaning and mainte-
nance services and related services.
At all times material herein, Respondent has been a
member of the Realty Advisory Board (herein called
RAB), a multiemployer association which exists for the
purpose, in whole or in part, of collective bargaining with
labor organizations, including Local 32B.
At all times material herein, Respondent, as a member of
RAB, has been party to, and bound by, a collective-
bargaining agreement between RAB and Local 32B.
During the past year, which period is representative of
their annual operations generally, the employer-members
of RAB, in the aggregate, and in the course and conduct of
their business, purchased cleaning materials and other
goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, of which
goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 were
transported and delivered to their place of business in
interstate commerce directly from States of the United
States other than the State in which they are located.
Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein,
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
Co., 369 U.S. 404, 408 (1962). As to those witnesses testifying in
contradiction to the findings herein, their testimony has been discredited,
either as having been in conflict with the testimony of credible witnesses or
because it was in and of itself incredible and unworthy of belief. All
testimony has been reviewed and weighed in the light of the entire record.
No testimony has been pretermitted.
100
OWNERS MAINTENANCE CORP.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 32B is, and has been at all times material herein, a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Thomas Soto and James Veve were discharged on July 3,
1976, because they falsely answered "No" to the question
on their application for employment, "Have you ever been
arrested? (Except for traffic violations)." Veve's application
is dated January 30, 1974, although on the application it is
noted that he "started work January 28, 1974." Soto's
application bears the date of May 7, 1973. He started work
shortly thereafter in May 1973.
The discharges were submitted to arbitration and, on
April 13, 1976, an award was rendered which did not result
in the full reinstatement of Soto and Veve. Respondent
claims that the arbitrator's opinion and award disposes of
the issues raised in the complaint and that the complaint
should be dismissed. The General Counsel strongly
maintains that the arbitrator's opinion and award are
vitiated by the rule in Spielberg Manufacturing Company,
112 NLRB 1080 (1955),3 and that a finding ought to be
entered that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) by its
discharges of Soto and Veve.
The arbitrator considered the following questions which
are also the issues before me:
(1) Did the Company have just cause to discharge the
grievants?
(2) Were the grievants discharged for engaging in union
activity?
(3) Did the leafleting activity engaged in by the grievants
constitute sufficient disloyalty toward the Company to
justify a denial of reinstatement?
(4) Was the distribution of leaflets protected by law?
In regard to the first question, the arbitrator opined and
found:
The record is devoid of any evidence to indicate how
the Company may have been prejudiced by the
grievants' misrepresentations on their job application,
other than the contention that they must have been
"untrustworthy" if they lied on their applications. In
addition, the grievants had worked for over two years
and one year respectively with concededly satisfactory
work records.
Accordingly, the falsification of job applications by
Soto and Veve did not constitute just cause for
discharge.
Since the foregoing arbitrator's findings meet the criteria
of the Spielberg case and are supported by substantial
I In the Spielberg case the Board held that in order for an arbitrator's
award to be binding on the Board the proceedings must appear fair and
regular, the parties must have agreed to be bound, and the arbitrator's
decision must not have been "clearly repugnant to the purposes and policies
of the Act." It is the latter criterion that the General Counsel asserts was not
met by the arbitrator's opinion and award in the instant case
4 These findings are sufficient to raise an inference of unlawful
motivation on the part of Respondent in view of the dischargees' known
union activities.
"[I If his discharge was even partially motivated by his [an employee's I
evidence in the record as a whole (see Illinois Bell
Telephone Company, 221 NLRB 989 (1975)), they are
binding on me and I find that Veve and Soto were
discharged without just cause.
As to the second question, i.e., "Were the grievants
discharged for engaging in union activity?", the arbitrator
found:
There is a substantial amount of evidence on the
record which indicates that the grievants may have, at
least in part, been discharged for reasons other than
falsification of job applications. This evidence includes;
Cuomo's continued investigation of the grievants after
several weeks of fruitless observation despite the
questionable reliability of an anonymous tip that they
had been involved in thefts in the buildings; the fact
that the decision to discharge the grievants was made
with no investigation beyond Cuomo's concededly
incomplete and at least partially inaccurate report; and,
Isolini's memorandum which stated that the grievants
had been a "continuing problem" without any explana-
tion as to what those problems were. 4
The mere fact, however, that the Company may have
had reasons other than falsification of employment
applications for discharging the grievants is not by itself
an indication that the grievants were discharged for
engaging in Union activity. The Company may havc had
many other reasons for discharging the grievants which it
chose not to air during this proceeding. [Emphasis
supplied.]
The latter sentence was brought to the attention of
Respondent's counsel and the question was put as to
whether Respondent did have "some other reasons" for
discharging Veve and Soto. The answer was, "Your honor,
we have no other reason." Thus, it must follow that the
arbitrator's conclusion that the discharges stemmed from
reasons other than union considerations was speculative
and does not meet the requirements of the substantive
evidence rule. His decision was not only based upon
guessed facts outside the record but on no actual facts at
all. Such a finding is repugnant to law and violates due
process of law. The arbitrator's dictum, therefore, which
holds that the discharges were not unlawful within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(3), is not binding under Spielberg.
It is clear that Soto and Veve, both union activists, who
the arbitrator concedes were discharged "at least in part5
. . . for reasons other than falsification of job applica-
tions," were fired because of their union activities. 6 The
record is totally barren of any other reasons. Their work
records were satisfactory. When "the reasons advanced [for
discharge] are not persuasive the [protected] activity may)
well disclose the real motive behind the employer's action."
union activity, there is a violation of §8(aX3) N. L R. B v. George J. Roberts
& Sons, Inc., d/b/a 7he Roberts Press, 451 F.2d 941.945(C.A. 2. 1971).
6 Among many other things Soto was an aggressive union steward; Veve
worked with him and in his absence filled his duties as steward, all of which
was known to Respondent. John Cuomo, director of secunrity, testified that
he "found that they were a pretty close knit group, Veve and Soto and their
friends, and that as a general group they had to be watched out for--and to
be especially careful to watch their activities," Constrestano. former director
of security, referred to Soto as a "back door lawyer" for the negotiating
guards.
101
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
N.L. R.B. v. Melrose Processing Co., 351 F.2d 693, 699 (C.A.
8, 1965). "[P]roof ... that the reason given [for a
termination] was false warrants the inference that some
other reason was being concealed." N. L R.B. v. Joseph
Antell, Inc., 358 F.2d 880, 883 (C.A. 1, 1966). An "inference
. . . of discriminatory motivation is sustained and is
buttressed by the fact that the explanation [offered by the
employer] failed to stand under scrutiny." N.L.R.B. v.
Griggs Equipment, Inc., 307 F.2d 275, 278 (C.A. 5, 1962).
Such was the circumstance in the instant case. I am
convinced and find that the "real motive"7' for the
discharges of Soto and Veve was to discourage membership
in a labor organization and to dissuade activities on behalf
of a union. The discharges were in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. See also A CS Industries, Inc., 188
NLRB 383, 391-392 (1971).
As is obvious from the foregoing discussion, Soto and
Veve were entitled to reinstatement to their jobs both
under the terms of the contract (as interpreted by the
arbitrator) and under the Act. Nevertheless, they were
barred from reinstatement by the arbitrator because they
had distributed certain leaflets at the premises of Respon-
dent on July 3, 1975, and early October 1975. Respondent
argued before the arbitrator and argues here that the
leafleting was unprotected activity for which Veve and
Soto were subject to lawful discharge because the leaflets
constituted disloyalty on the part of Soto and Veve and
were an attempt by Soto and Veve to undermine the
Union's position as exclusive representative. On these
points the arbitrator found:
Thus, the grievants' conduct in distributing the above
described leaflets must be held to have constituted
gross disloyalty toward the Company . . . and its
ability to do business. Accordingly, the distribution of
leaflets by the grievants is sufficient to justify denying
them reinstatement to their jobs.
The arbitrator relied on N.L.R.B. v. Local Union No.
1229, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL
[Jefferson Standard Broadcasting Company], 346 U.S. 464
(1953), and Emporium Capwell Co. v. Western Addition
Community Organization, 420 U.S. 50 (1975). In this the
arbitrator was in error for the leaflet distribution was
protected concerted activity under Section 7 of the Act.
Thus the arbitrator's finding was "clearly repugnant to the
purposes and policies of the Act" and must be held for
naught. Spielberg Manufacturing Company, supra. A review
of the leaflets is pertinent.
In the first leaflet which was distributed, the union
activities of Soto and Veve were reviewed and the
conclusion was drawn that they were not discharged
because of "falsification of records" but that such claim
was a "pretext." Soto and Veve requested help from their
"fellow working people of the building and the adjoining
area." Among other things the leaflet related: "The real
reason that brothers Jaime Veve and Tommy Soto have
been fired from the day shift of porters is because these
workers have challenged the racist, discriminatory, antila-
7 See N.LR.B. v. John Brown, d/b/a Brown Food Stores, 380 U.S. 278
(1965).
bor, antiwomen practices in the building. Because they
have dared to attempt to organize the workers in the
building to stand up for their rights as humans." This
charge is almost the precise finding which the General
Counsel has requested in this case.
The distribution of this leaflet, which has not been
proved to have been untruthful, was protected under
Section 7 of the Act. Its purpose, plain on its face, was to
solicit help from fellow workers to rectify the alleged
wrongful discharges of Soto and Veve (which later even the
arbitrator found to have been in violation of the contract).
This was privileged conduct. Dreis & Krump Manufactur-
ing, Inc., 221 NLRB 309 (1975), enfd. 544 F.2d 320 (C.A. 7,
1976). Nor does this leaflet anticipate the bypassing or
undermining of the Union as claimed by Respondent.
The second leaflet distributed in October, sometime
before the scheduled date for the arbitration hearing, noted
that the arbitration hearing was set for October 7, 1975. In
it were reviewed the facts in respect to the discharges of
Soto and Veve which coincided with those related in the
first leaflet. Included in addition was, "Don't let these
brothers be railroaded out of a job during these times of
extreme economic crises by false charges and goon tactics."
In the leaflet it was related:
Since the firings, the OMC and H-S have conducted
a campaign of terror and harassment against employees
who support Tommy and Jaime. Members of local 32B
S.E.I.U. working in the building as porters and guards
have been threatened by Phil Cimusz, Roy LeClaire,
and chief of security, John Cuomo (see supporting
statements below). John Cuomo, an ex-cop who carries
a gun, has gone so far as to physically threaten workers
in the building!
A request was again made for "fellow working people" to
"please help Tommy Soto and Jaime Veve get their jobs
back."
This headline appeared on the first page of the leaflet:
PUERTO RICAN WORKERS FIGHT TO REGAIN JOBS!!
SUPPORT GROWS! !!
An item was devoted to "The Question of Seniority."
Under such heading it was stated in part:
Our employer, the Owners Maintenance Company
(O.M.C.) has not been abiding by the system of
seniority as stated by our contract. Blacks, Puerto
Ricans, and other minority workers, who have the most
seniority, have been discriminated against with respect
to promotions, job assignments, preferred shifts, etc.
O.M.C. has frustated [sic] and discouraged us from
knowing our rights and from going to our union, Local
32B S.E.I.U. In fact, they have threatened union men
with firing or layoffs if they notify the union of their
grievances. The following cases demonstrate the unjust
violation of our rights.
102
OWNERS MAINTENANCE CORP.
Following the above statement was an article "Black
Brother Fights Racism at O.M.C." Reference was made to
a grievance filed with the Union and the Human Rights
Commission, settlement of which had been violated by the
Company. The article ended "WE DEMAND THAT HE BE
GIVEN THE JOB HE WAS PROMISED IMMEDIATELY. EXPRESS
YOUR OUTRAGE AT THIS INJUSTICE BY CALLING THE
HELMSLEY SPEAR OFFICES. 687-6400"
Another item was designated "Worker Reverses Dis-
criminatory Layoff." It records the successful settlement of
a grievance. Another article is entitled "Union Brother
Fights for Seniority." In the article it is related that
employee Fausto Gonzalez has a pending grievance with
Local 32B "and needs the support of everyone to win his
case." A letter from 20 members of Local 32B to Arbitrator
Marlin was reproduced in the leaflet. Among other things,
the letter recited "since their [Soto and Veve] dismissal,
things have changed greatly for the worse. Almost every
employee has been warned not to associate with or support
Jaime Veve and Tommy Soto in regaining their jobs."
A final item concerned "Dedicated Worker Wins Partial
Victory." The item among other things relates that,
through the Union, a fired employee, Carlos Rivera, was
given a porter's job in another building. It was observed:
Without the support his union brothers gave, this
partial victory could not have been possible. Carlos
thanks everyone for their support.
In a box appeared this language: "Know your union, know
your rights," followed by the Union's address and the
name of its representative.
Included in the leaflet were pictures of Soto and Veve
and several employees whose names appear in the above
items. There is also a picture of John Cuomo with this
caption: "John Cuomo, gun carrying ex-cop, has threat-
ened workers not to testify or support or associate with
Jaime and Tommy." Another picture of seven males bears
this caption:
From left to right: Carlos Rivera, fired and reinstated
(see article below); Jaime Veve and Tommy Soto, fired
(see article page 1); James Minnifield, threatened that
he is "next"; Andy Calabrese, fired and reinstated at
other building; Teddy Kerin; and Tommy McNally,
threatened.8
The leaflet was printed in English and Spanish.
I cannot find in this leaflet, or from the record as a
whole, that by its distribution the Union was undermined
or short circuited or that Soto or Veve intended to short
circuit or undermine the Union. In fact, the Union's
address was furnished to workers for their enlightenment.
Indeed, the leaflet enhanced the Union's role as the
bargaining agent. Unlike the employees involved in
Emporium Capwell Co. v. Western Addition Community
Organization, supra (relied on by Respondent), Soto and
Veve did not, by the distribution of the leaflet, bypass their
Union and attempt to deal directly with the employer.
Their efforts were in furtherance of their own grievances
I On the basis of the credible record before me. I cannot find that the
facts and assertions related in the foregoing leaflet are untrue.
through the solicitation of employees' help; this was
protected activity. Dreis & Krump Manufacturing, Inc.,
supra. Nor was there disloyalty of a nature which would
have caused Soto and Veve to forfeit the Act's protection.
See Jefferson Standard Broadcasting Company, 94 NLRB
1507 (1951). Moreover, what was published has not been
shown to have strayed from the truth nor been proved to
have been deliberately or maliciously false. Cf. Owens-
Corning Fiberglass Corporation v. N.LR.B., 407 F.2d 1357
(C.A. 4, 1969); Texaco, Inc. v. N.LR.B., 462 F.2d 812 (C.A.
3, 1972). The burden was on Respondent to support the
claim that the leaflet distribution was condemned by the
law. It did not sustain that burden.
Thus, since the leaflet distributions were protected
activity under Section 7 of the Act, Respondent, by
discharging or refusing to reinstate Soto and Veve, violated
Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and it will
effectuate the purposes of the Act for jurisdiction to be
exercised herein.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of
the Act, Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By unlawfully discharging Thomas Soto and James
Veve on July 3, 1975, and refusing to reinstate them,
Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
It having been found that Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, it is recommended that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It
having been found that Respondent unlawfully discharged
Thomas Soto and James Veve on July 3, 1975, and has
since failed and refused to reinstate them, because of their
protected concerted activities, in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act, it is recommended that Respondent
remedy such unlawful conduct. It is recommended in
accordance with Board policy 9 that Respondent offer the
foregoing employees immediate and full reinstatement to
their former positions or, if such positions no longer exist,
to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges, dismissing if
necessary any employees hired on or since July 3, 1975, to
fill any of said positions, and make them whole for any loss
of earnings they may have suffered by reason of Respon-
dent's acts herein detailed by payments to them of a sum of
money equal to the amount they would have earned from
9 See The Riushton Company, 158 NLRB 1730. 1731 (1966).
103
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the date of their unlawful discharges to the date of an offer
of reinstatement, less net earnings during such period, to be
computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established
by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289
(1950), and including interest at the rate of 6 percent per
annum in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating
Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and the entire record in this proceed-
ing, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, I hereby issue the following
recommended:
ORDER o1
The Respondent, Owners Maintenance Corporation,
New York, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging union or concerted activities of its
employees or membership in local 32B, Service Employees
International Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization, by unlawfully and discriminatorily discharg-
ing its employees or discriminating in any other manner
with respect to their hire or tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment in violation of 8(a)(1) or
(3) of the Act.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing any employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, to engage in self-organization,
to bargain collectively through a representative of their
own choosing, to act together for collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and
all these things.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Thomas Soto and James Veve immediate and
full reinstatement to their former positions or, if such
positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges, discharging if necessary any employ-
ees hired to replace them, and make them whole for any
loss of pay that they may have suffered by reason of
Respondent's unlawful discharge of them in accordance
with the recommendations set forth in the section of this
Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this recommended Order.
(c) Post at its facility at New York, New York, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." i Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 2, after being duly signed by Respondent's
representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 2, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be
dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act other
than those found in this Decision.
10 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall. as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
II In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing in which we participated and had a chance
to give evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has
found that we committed certain unfair labor practices and
has ordered us to post this notice. We intend to abide by
the following:
WE WILL offer Thomas Soto and James Veve their
jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, substantially
equivalent jobs.
WE WILL restore the above-named employees'
seniority and pay them the backpay they lost because
we discharged him.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully discharge any of our
employees because of their union affection or because
they engage in union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
rights, guaranteed by Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act, to engage in self-organization, to
bargain collectively through a representative of their
own choosing, to act together for collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
any and all these things.
OWNERS MAINTENANCE
CORP.
104