Property Markets Group

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 6, 2003

339 N.L.R.B. 199 (N.L.R.B. 2003)

PROPERTY MARKETS GROUP 199
Property Markets Group, Inc. and Kazimierz Jagielo.
Case 2–CA–34269
June 6, 2003
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS SCHAUMBER, WALSH, AND ACOSTA
On November 13, 2002, Administrative Law Judge
Jesse Kleiman issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the
General Counsel filed an answering 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 affirms the
judge’s rulings, findings,1 and conclusions2 and adopts
the recommended Order as modified below.3
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent, Property
Markets Group, Inc., New York, New York, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Order as modified.
Substitute the following for paragraphs 1(a)–(e).
“(a) Failing and refusing to allow employees to cover
for absent employees because of their union membership
and activities on behalf of the Union.
“(b) Threatening employees with discharge because of
their membership in and support for the Union.
“(c) Discriminatorily issuing employees warning let-
ters because of their union membership and support.

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 preponder-
ance 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.
Some of the Respondent’s exceptions imply that the judge’s rulings,
findings, and conclusions demonstrate bias and prejudice. On careful
examination of the judge’s decision and the entire record, we find Re-
spondent’s contentions without merit.
2 Member Acosta observes that, although the administrative law
judge inferred animus based in part on time-barred conduct, it is settled
that the Board may consider such conduct to shed light on events within
the limitations period. See Machinists Local 1424 (Bryan Mfg. Co.) v.
NLRB, 362 U.S. 411, 416 (1960). In addition, although the judge con-
sidered events underlying previously withdrawn or settled charges, the
judge’s finding of animus is amply supported by independent, postset-
tlement evidence occurring within the limitations period. Accordingly,
the judge’s finding of animus raises neither a limitations nor a due
process issue.
3 We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order to conform with
the remedial language customarily used for the violations found.
“(d) Unlawfully ordering employees to work double
shifts in retaliation for their union activities and support.
“(e) Unlawfully failing and refusing to grant employ-
ees Christmas bonuses because of their union member-
ship and activities in support of the Union.”

Margit Reiner, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Thomas Walsh, Esq. (Jackson & Lewis, LLP), for the Respon-
dent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JESSE KLEIMAN, Administrative Law Judge. Upon the basis
of a charge filed by Jagielo Kazimierz (Jagielo)1 on January 8,
2002, a complaint and notice of hearing was issued on April 30,
2002, alleging that Property Markets Group, Inc. (the Respon-
dent), has been engaging in certain unfair labor practices, as set
forth in the National Labor Relations Act (the Act), by interfer-
ing with, restraining, and coercing Kazimierz Jagielo and
Nadya Gervitz in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and
discriminating against them in regard to hire or tenure or terms
and conditions of employment in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act. By answer timely filed, the Respondent
denied the material allegations in the complaint.
A hearing was held before me in New York, New York, on
July 15 and 16, 2002. Subsequent to the closing of the case, the
General Counsel and the Respondent filed briefs.2
On the entire record and the briefs of the parties, and upon
my observation of the witnesses, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent owns and operates residential properties
throughout New York City, including 500 West End Avenue,
New York, New York, the property involved in this case. The
Respondent, a domestic corporation, manages the property at
500 West End Avenue and in the course of all its business op-
erations derives gross rental revenues in excess of $500,000
and receives at its facilities goods valued in excess of $5000
from other enterprises located within the State of New York,
each of which other enterprises had received these goods di-
rectly from points outside the State of New York. The com-
plaint alleges, the Respondent admits, and I find that the Re-
spondent is now, and has been at all times material, an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
1 The Charging Party’s name is really Kazimierz Jagielo.
2 At the trial par. 10 of the complaint was amended to read par. 8.
General Counsel in its brief withdrew par. 8(f) of the complaint which
reads:
(f) in about early January 2002, the exact date presently unknown, [the
Respondent] denied Kazimierz pay by refusing to unlock the locker
room door for two hours.
339 NLRB No. 31
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 200
The complaint alleges, the Respondent admits, and I find that
John Simonlacaj, property manager, is a supervisor of the Re-
spondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and an
agent of the Respondent, acting on its behalf. The Respondent
stipulated and I find that Elliot Joseph, the Respondent’s asset
manager, is a managerial employee and an agent of the Re-
spondent acting on its behalf.3 The complaint also alleges, but
the Respondent denies, that Alek Pilat, the building superinten-
dent at 500 West End Avenue, at all material times was a su-
pervisor of the Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11)
of the Act and an agent of the Respondent acting on its behalf.4
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, the Respondent admits, and I find that
Local 32B–32J, SEIU, AFL–CIO (the Union), at all material
times, has been a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act. Additionally, the last collective-
bargaining agreement between the Respondent and the Union
expired April 1997. Both Nadya Gervitz and Kazimierz Jagielo
are members of the Union.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Respondent manages a residential property at 500 West
End Avenue, New York, New York (500 West End)5 in which
it employs a superintendent, a handyman, porters, and five
doormen; Tony Menarkovich, Margarito Alarcon, Ervin Ko-
landre, and the alleged discriminatees Jagielo and Gervitz.6
Both Jagielo and Gervitz have worked at 500 West End for at
least 10 years. The Respondent started managing this property
sometime after Jagielo and Gervitz began working there, but
well before 1997.
The Respondent and the Union have had a prior collective-
bargaining history, however the last collective-bargaining
agreement expired in April 1997. While the Respondent and the
Union failed to reach agreement on a renewal agreement, the
wages and benefits of Gervitz and Jagielo, both union mem-
bers, has remained the same.

3 Elliot Joseph testified that he is responsible for “the overall man-
agement” of 500 West End Avenue and “just successfully completed
the condominium conversion of that rental property . . . and just overall
bringing the quality of the building up to first class status.”
4 Alek Pilat was not called as a witness herein.
5 Simonlacaj testified that in May 2000, the Respondent elected to
convert 500 West End from a rental to a premium condominium build-
ing. The renovation involved aesthetic changes to the building and a
reorganization of 500 West End’s staff necessitated by the December
2000 automation of the building’s passenger elevator and the intention
to upgrade the building from a class B property to a class A property.
Consequently, doormen instead of elevator operators are now required.
6 Jagielo originally worked as a porter and elevator operator and
Gervitz as an elevator operator. Around January 2001, when the eleva-
tor was made automatic, all elevator operators became doormen. Cur-
rently, Jagielo works the night shift (11 p.m. to 7 a.m.) Tuesday
through Friday and the day shift (7 a.m. to 3 p.m.) on Sunday. During
the Wednesday and Friday shifts, he works as both a doorman and a
porter. During the remaining three shifts, he works exclusively as a
doorman. Gervitz, who always worked 2 days a week, currently works
as a porter during the day shift on Mondays and as both a porter and
doorman during the night shift on Saturdays.
Kazimierz Jagielo’s Disciplinary Warnings
On November 13, 1997, Jagielo received a written warning
for his refusal to follow directions and his overuse of break-
time. On January 5, 1998, Jagielo was suspended for 3 days for
arriving late for his shift without notification and for altering
his timecards on these occasions. On May 13, 1998, Jagielo
was issued a written warning for events that occurred on Febru-
ary 16, March 16, and April 16, 1998, from 1 to 3 months be-
fore this warning was issued,7 and one on April 20, 1998.
Jagielo denied these events, testifying that he had not talked
loudly during nighttime hours, had not smoked in the building,8
had not thrown a cigarette butt behind a flower pot, had not
altered his timecard on occasions,9 and had not failed to mop
the floors as part of his duties, as alleged in the warning notice
of May 13, 1998. Regarding the final incident alleged in the
May 13 warning, that of hitting the elevator cab door, Jagielo
explained that the elevator door became stuck at times and
employees would have to hit it to make it work.
Vladimir Gervitz Arbitration
In 1997 the Respondent discharged Vladimir Gervitz (Vladi-
mir) who then filed a grievance with the Union. After the
Union filed for arbitration, an arbitration hearing was held from
May 19, 1998, to November 4, 1999, at which Nadya Gervitz
testified twice on behalf of her husband Vladimir. On Decem-
ber 8, 1998, Jagielo was subpoened to testify at the arbitration
hearing on December 14, 1998, at 9:45 a.m. Jagielo testified
that after he showed the subpoena to the then building superin-
tendent, Ricky Kukaj, he was denied permission to attend the
arbitration hearing, and Kukaj warned him that if he went to the
hearing he would be fired. Jagielo reported Kukaj threat to
Vladimir who asked him to write a letter also detailing the
threat. When Jagielo failed to appear at the hearing, Vladimir
7 Previously on May 7, 1998, Jagielo had filed a charge with the
Board alleging that the Respondent had suspended him on January 5,
1998, for 3 days in violation of Sec. 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, it also
being received by the Respondent on May 11, 1998. Two days later, on
May 13, 1998, the Respondent issued the May 13, 1998 written warn-
ing to Jagielo. Simonlacaj testified that this matter was settled without
trial, “Basically for money reasons. I really didn’t want to pay an attor-
ney, and I really didn’t have the time to sit through these hearings my-
self.” The settlement agreement provided for expunging the May 13,
1998 warning notice and posting of a notice assuring employees of
their rights under the Act.
8 Jagieo testified that there was one employee, Prel Gielaj, who
smoked on the job in the presence of the former building superintend-
dent, Ricky Kukaj, but never received any warnings.
9 Jagielo testified that while he did not alter his timecard, he had
seen other employees who had altered theirs, naming employees Alar-
con and Kolandreo. Gervitz testified that she, Mike, Tony Menark-
ovich, the doorman, Tony the handyman, Timmy, Paul, and Alarcon
wrote their arrival times on their timecards every Monday afternoon
because the cards were not there when they arrived on Monday morn-
ings. The testimony of Jagielo and Gervitz was undisputed either
through other testimony or documentary evidence, since the Respon-
dent was unable to produce the timecards stating it no longer had them.
Also it is undisputed that any of the employees named by Jagielo and
Gervitz as having altered their timecards received warning notices for
this.
PROPERTY MARKETS GROUP 201
turned Jagielo’s letter over to the Union’s attorney who showed
it to the arbitrator and the Respondent’s lawyer.10
According to the testimony of witnesses for both parties
when the alleged threats were made known to the Respondent’s
representative at the hearing, on December 14, 1998, Simonla-
caj called Kukaj to find out what had occurred. Simonlacaj
testified that Kukaj denied having been told by Jagielo about
the subpoena and his required appearance, and denied that he
had warned Jagielo not to appear at the hearing or he would be
fired. Simonlacaj stated that he then instructed Kukaj to have
Jagielo come immediately to the arbitration hearing, and also
told this to Jagielo personally over the telephone.
However, Jagielo testified that because of Kukaj’s threats he
had not appeared at the arbitration hearing on December 14, at
the appointed hour. He stated that when Simonlacaj spoke to
him on the telephone, Jagielo was told by Simonlacaj to finish
his work that day and he would be permitted to attend the next
scheduled arbitration session. Gervitz testified that when her
husband informed her that Jagielo was not coming to the hear-
ing “because he is afraid,” she telephoned him. Gervitz stated
that Jagielo told her that Simonlacaj had told him “to come to
the next hearing,” whereupon Gervitz told Jagielo to come to
the arbitration hearing that day, and “in 30 minutes he showed
up.”11
On January 15, 1999, Jagielo filed a charge with the Board,
Region 2, regarding Kukaj’s threat. On April 26, 1999, Si-
monlacaj sent a letter to Jagielo assuring him that he would not
be retaliated against for testifying at the arbitration hearing.
Jagielo then withdrew his charge.
Gervitz’ Request to Replace Absent Employees
The arbitrator issued a decision on February 29, 2000, in
Vladimir’s arbitration upholding the discharge but ordering the
Respondent to pay Vladimir severance pay based on the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement if he would move out of 500 West
End by April 1. In March, the Gervitz’ moved out of the build-
ing. It had been the practice previously for Nadya Gervitz to
fill-in for absent employees about 80 percent of the time, and
when she and her husband vacated their apartment at 500 West
End, she asked Alek Pilat, the superintendant, to call her to
cover for employees who were out, ill, or vacationing. Gervitz
stated that Pilat told her “okay.”
Gervitz testiifed that in April 2000, doorman Tony Menark-
ovich went on sick leave. Gervitz had heard from either
Menarkovich or another employee, “Margo” that when
Menarkovich had asked Pilat to cover for him, Pilat had said
“anybody could replace you and cover for you except Nadya.”
Gervitz stated that she asked Pilat about this and he told her,
“it’s not my decision. I’m just following the directions or the
instructions John Simonlacaj gave me. It’s not really my deci-
sion.” Gervitz related that later in April 2000, she spoke to Pilat
again requesting to replace any employees going on vacation.
Although it is undisputed that the Respondent had never hired
temporary workers before to cover for doormen, Pilat replied

10 Vladimir Gervitz testified similarly.
11 Simonlacaj denied that he told Jagielo to come to the arbitration
hearing another time and denied telling anyone that Jagielo was afraid
to come to the hearing.
that management was going to hire temporary workers to cover
for vacationing employees.
Gervitz testified that after speaking to Pilat, she spoke to
Wendy Sanchez, another of the Respondent’s managers, about
replacing employees. Sanchez told her to write to Simonlacaj
about her request, which she did on May 29, 2000. When Si-
monlacaj did not answer her letter, Gervitz again spoke to San-
chez, asking her to speak to Simonlacaj. While Sanchez said
she would do so, she also advised Gervitz to “talk directly to
my supervisor Alek Pilat.” Gervitz also wrote a letter to Pilat
on June 7, 2000, requesting to replace employees as she had
previously done before.
On June 15, 2000, Gervitz filed a charge with the Board al-
leging that she was denied the opportunity to replace employees
because of her support for the Union. After the filing of the
charge, the Respondent allowed Gervitz to replace workers and
she withdrew her charge as part of a settlement between the
parties. While the Respondent asserts that in late December
2000, “coinciding with the automation of the passenger eleva-
tor, PMG decided to use a temporary agency to fill-in for ab-
sent doormen”, it appears that after the settlement Gervitz has
recently filled-in as a doorman for Margarito (Margo) Alarcone
six times. Jagielo three times and Irwin Kolandreo once.
Jagielo’s Vacation Request
Jagielo testified that in January 2000, he asked Pilat if he
could take his vacation on July 21, 2000. Pilat said there would
be no problem. On April 24, 2000, Menarkovich told Jagielo
that he wanted to take his vacation at the same time as Jagielo.
Jagielo related that when he told this to Pilat, Pilat told him he
could not take his vacation at the requested time, that “man-
agement does not like the members of the Union” and was
uhappy that Jagielo appeared and testified at the arbitration
hearing. Jagielo then wrote a letter on May 2, 2000, to the Re-
spondent requesting his vacation as originally approved. While
he received no response to his letter, Pilat told him that man-
agement would not approve his vacation over Menarkovich.
Jagielo then filed a charge with the Board, Region 2, on May
19, 2000, alleging that he had been denied his vacation because
he had previously filed charges against the Respondent with the
Board and had testified at Vladimir Gervitz’ arbitration hearing.
After the charge was filed, Jagielo was given the vacation he
requested and then he withdrew his charge as part of a settle-
ment agreement.
Meetings with Employees
Between December 2000 and May 2001, Joseph held a meet-
ing with all the employees at 500 West End to explain, as part
of the conversion to condominium properties, the change in
their duties and responsibilities as employees. Joseph explained
the new duties of the doormen; that the front door was never to
be left unattended, and if a doorman must leave his/her post for
an unscheduled break, he/she must contact another employee
via walkie-talkie and have that coworker cover for them.12
12 While Simonlacaj was not present at this meeting, he testified that
Joseph “explained what we were doing with the building and that the
level of service had to change. And he explained what the duties were
and how they were to act with tenants, guests and that kind of thing.”

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 202
Shortly after Joseph’s meeting with employees, Simonlacaj
also held a meeting with the employees of 500 West End.
Again employees were told that people coming into the build-
ing to view the apartments and those who had already pur-
chased them would expect and want a certain high level of
service. Simonlacaj discussed with employees the duties of the
doorman; that everyone should be addressed as Mr. or Mrs.,
cabs should be hailed, open doors for people, help with pack-
ages, announce guests and visitors, and have them sign in, “that
type of thing.”
Gervitz testified about a meeting held on May 29, 2001, by
Alek Pilat, the superintendant, with all the employees.13 She
stated that Pilat told them that Elliot Joseph, the Respondent’s
asset manager did not like how they worked as doormen and
wanted to fire all of them. Pilat told them this was simple to do
“Like for example, Nadya is a good example.” There were
protests by the employees about some of the working condi-
tions. Gervitz stated that Pilat said the employees had big sala-
ries and they “will have to work really hard because any time
you can get fired,” and if you go to the Union for help, it would
take many years.
Jagielo testified that about 1 month after this meeting, or in
August 2001, Pilat told him that “management does not like the
members of the union” and was not happy with the fact that
Jagielo had joined the Union. Jagielo stated that Pilat had said
that the year before Simonlacaj had mentioned that he doesn’t
like people being members of the Union, and that Jagielo
should keep this conversation between them a secret, confiden-
tial. Jagielo also related that Pilat told him that: “we should be
careful because we can be terminated because they don’t like
the members of the Union.”14 Jagielo testified that Pilat re-
peated that management did not like union members on about
five or six other occasions, the last time about half a year or 7–
8 months ago. Jagielo also recalled that when Pilat was hired in
2000 he told Jagielo that management did not like him because
he had testified at Vladimir’s Gervitz’ arbitration hearing. Ac-
cording to Jagielo, Pilat said this to him, two or three times, the
last time about 7 months ago.
Nadya Gervitz’ Disciplinary Warnings
Simonlacaj testified that during Gervitz’ employment the
Respondent had received numerous complaints about her from
tenants and brokers.15 Moreover, Gervitz had received three
written disciplinary warnings from the Respondent. On Sep-
tember 26, 1997, Gervitz received a written warning for leaving
her post as elevator operator. On May 25, 2001, Gervitz re-

13 Simonlacaj testified that he had asked Pilat to call this employee
meeting because he was receiving complaints from tenants and brokers
about the doormen being absent from their posts, smoking on the job,
not being courteous, and not directing people sitting in the lobby where
to go.
14 Jagielo filed a charge with the Board regarding this on November
20, 2001. On January 18, 2002, the Respondent signed a settlement
agreement, which involved the posting of a notice to employees assur-
ing them they would not be threatened with discharge because of their
membership in or activities on behalf of the Union.
15 In February 1999, a tenant wrote to Simonlacaj threatening to take
legal action against the Respondent if Gervitz did not stop inappropri-
ately questioning the tenants’ children and housekeeper.
ceived a written warning for twice leaving her post as doorman
unattended. During a visit to the property, Joseph had observed
that Gervitz had left her post as doorman unattended. He
warned Gervitz that if she was to leave her doormen post she
was to contact another employee to fill in until she returned.
Upon Joseph’s return to the premises soon thereafter that same
day, he again found that Gervitz had deserted her post, but this
time having a visiting friend fill in for her for a short time. Jo-
seph reported this to the Respondent and Simonlacaj then is-
sued Gervitz her second warning notice. Gervitz explained that
on May 25, 2001, when Joseph twice came by, she was in the
ladies’ room, the first time to wash her hands after lunch and
the second time to use the bathroom. Gervitz stated that while
she was in the bathroom she had locked the front door in order
to protect the building since no one was available to cover for
her.16
The General Counsel, in her brief, contests Joseph’s allega-
tion that Gervitz was a “caricature of a doorman,” in a deroga-
tory manner. She notes that this related to “comportment.” In
agreement with the General Counsel, I observed that Nadya
Gervitz had a pleasant attitude while as a witness, was at all
times courteous, and comported herself well. She dressed ap-
propriately for trial in a suit and answered questions in a clear
voice. I did not find this in anyway diminished by the require-
ment that she gave her answers through an interpreter.
Nadya Gervitz’ third written warning notice, which is one of
the events at issue in this case, occurred on December 12, 2001.
Gervitz testified that on Monday, November 19, 2001, Pilat
informed Gervitz that because surveillance cameras were being
installed, he could watch the employees. Gervitz, “interested,”
asked Pilat if he could show her how the cameras worked. Pilat
told her the monitor was in the room off the lobby. Gervitz
described the room and area as follows: when you enter the
room from the lobby, there is an empty area. To the right of that
area is a room with the monitor, a desk, and a wall unit (right
room). To the left of the empty area is a small room with clean-
ing supplies and a sink (left room). Off the left room is a bath-
room.
After speaking with Pilat, Gervitz went to the left room to
get some cleaning supplies. Gervitz testified that as she was
walking out through the empty area in the middle, she noticed
that the door to the right room was open and she stopped and
went closer to look at the monitor while putting on her cleaning
gloves. Gervitz stated that at that moment, Joseph and another
man came into the room and Joseph started screaming at her
that she shouldn’t be in that room, whereupon Gervitz left to
perform her duties. Gervitz related that later that day Pilat ad-
vised her that she would receive a warning notice for being in
the room with the monitor.
16 Joseph testified that when he saw Gervitz come to the door, she
was coming from the direction of the toilet and sink. Also, Simonlacaj
testified that no one was available to relieve the doormen on the second
and third shifts. Moreover, Gervitz testified that no one in management
ever told her that she needed someone to cover her post if she went to
the bathroom. Interestingly, the warning notice about Gervitz leaving
her post unattended fails to mention Joseph’s contention that Gervitz
had a friend watching the door in her absence.
PROPERTY MARKETS GROUP 203
In late December, Pilat handed Gervitz a warning letter dated
December 12, 2001, along with a list of rules. Gervitz testiified
that Pilat told her that she and Jagielo should be very careful
because the owner would do everything possible to catch them
“on something and fire them.” Gervitz stated that she had never
been told by anyone not to go into the room with the monitor
and that workmen such as painters went in and out of that room
looking at the monitor and left their supplies and clothes in the
empty area right next door. Gervitz also testified, contrary to
the warning letter, that the monitor is not in the superinten-
dent’s office as that office is in the basement, and that the room
with the monitor contains no confidential materials or apart-
ment keys.
The Respondent alleges that Gervitz was “inappropriately
being in the superintendent’s office without supervision . . .
watching the building’s moniotoring system,” and therefore
was issued the third warning letter. Joseph testified that the
Respondent had put in cameras to “montor deliveries and con-
tractors and so forth,” and we also moved the superintendent’s
office to the ground floor right next to the package room. Jo-
seph stated that when he came into the building he found Ger-
vitz, while acting as a porter, inside the “Super’s Office, which
she wasn’t supposed to be, staring at the camera. Staring at the
video monitor.” Joseph related that the keys to the apartments,
confidential materials (sales agreements), and valuables such as
deliveries are kept in the superintendent’s office, which is
locked.17 He added that the monitor was also kept in the super-
intendent’s office.
Additional Refusal to Allow Gervitz to Replace Employees
Gervitz testified that in July 2001, Alarcon had told her that
he asked Pilat if Gervitz could replace him on Sunday because
he needed the day off and only Gervitz wanted to work on Sun-
day. Gervitz stated that Alarcon asked her to call Pilat since
Pilat had said anyone could replace Alarcon except Gervitz,
and remind him of the prior agreement with the Board. Gervitz
related that when she called Pilat about replacing Alarcon, Pilat
told her to speak to Simonlacaj. Gervitz testified that a day or
two later when she asked Simonlacaj if she could replace em-
ployees who went on leave or vacation, he told her to speak
with Pilat. Gervitz said that when she spoke to Pilat he told her
to speak to Simonlacaj. When Gervitz did so, Simonlacaj in-
sisted that she was to ask Pilat about this. Gervitz indicated that
when she made her request again to Pilat, “he said ‘you should
understand Nadya.’ Then I said ‘is it like a game which is con-
tinuing?’ He laughed and he said ‘yes.’”18
In August 2001, Gervitz again asked Pilat if she could re-
place Menarkovich when he went on vacation. Pilat told her she
could not. Since then, although Menarkovich took a 4 week
vacation in August 2001, Alarcon took 2 weeks in November

17 By letter dated October 18, 2001, Simonlacaj informed Pilat that
because of tenant complaints, the Respondent was moving the superin-
tendent’s office to the lobby. Gervitz testified that she believed that the
superintendent’s office had not been moved to the lobby, but remained
in the basement.
18 I agree with the General Counsel’s assertion in her brief that Si-
monlacaj abetted by Pilat was playing some sort of game with Gervitz,
sending her back and forth.
and 10 days in January, Jagielo took 3 weeks in May, and Ko-
landreo took 4 weeks in May, Gervitz testified that she has
substituted for employees for a total of only 10 days.
Jagielo’s December 12, 2001 Warning
On December 12, 2001, the Respondent isued a warning let-
ter to Jagielo for smoking while on duty and failing to assist
tenants with packages. Jagielo testified that, contrary to the
letter’s assertions, he did not smoke on the job nor had a tenant
asked him to get something from the package room, which he
allegedly refused to do. Jagielo stated that in May 2001, Si-
monlacaj told him that the doorman could not help the people
with packages because the package room was a “self-help
place,” and since the package room was “far away from the
main door, they could not see who was entering the building.”19
Gervitz testified that Jagielo had told her of this conversation
with Simonlacaj and that in May 2001, Pilat had told her the
same thing. Gervitz further testified that Menarkovich and
Alarcon told her that Pilot had told them as well not to help
with packages.20
Jagielo’s Coverage of Alarcon’s Shift
In December 2001, Pilat asked Jagielo to cover for Margarito
Alarcon, who could not attend his shift that day. Jagielo testi-
fied that he explained to Pilat that this would mean that he
would be working two shifts in a row and then would have to
come in 8 hours later for a third shift handling garbage. Jagielo
stated that he suggested that Gervitz be used to cover for Alar-
con since she worked only part time. Jagielo related that Pilat
told him that if he didn’t replace Alarcon for that shift, he
should not come to work anymore. Jagielo then worked the
entire shift although he stated that he was extremely tired. The
Respondent asserts that this occurs infrequently and it is stan-
dard procedure to have the employee remain on post until the
absent employee returns to duty.
Yearend Bonuses
The parties stipulated that Jagielo and Gervitz were the only
two employees who did not receive yearend bonuses in 2001.
Both Gervitz and Jagielo testified that in previous years, they
had received such bonuses. Simonlacaj testified that he had
decided that Gervitz and Jagielo were underserving of such
bonuses. Simonlacaj stated that he based his decision on Ger-
vitz’ disciplinary record and regarding Jagielo, based on the
various times he had been observed out of uniform and coun-
seled by Simonlacaj for this, his refusal to help tenants with
packages, failing to announce visitors, and his smoking in front
of the building while on duty.
It should be noted that Jagielo currently remains a full-time
employee of the Respondent’s at 500 West End Avenue.
19 Simonlacaj denied that he said this. However, Jagielo did admit
receiving a memorandum from the Respondent dated November 28,
2001, which prohibited smoking during working hours and directs
doormen to assist tenants with packages.
20 Prior to Jagielo’s warning letter, in an affidavit given by Gervitz to
a Board agent, she stated that Pilat has suggested that doormen do not
help with packages.

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 204
Credibility
With regard to the credibility of the respective parties’ wit-
nesses, after carefully considering the record evidence, I have
based my findings on the observation of the demeanor of the
witnesses, the weight of the respective evidence, established
and admitted facts, inherent probabilities, and reasonable infer-
ences which may be drawn from the record as a whole. Ameri-
can Tissue Corp., 336 NLRB 435 (2002); New York University
Medical Center, 324 NLRB 887 (1997); Gold Standard Enter-
prises, 259 NLRB 618 (1978); V & W Castings, 231 NLRB
912 (1977); and Northridge Knitting Mills, 223 NLRB 230
(1976). I tend to credit the testimony of the General Counsel’s
witnesses. Their testimony was given in a forthright manner,
generally consistent and corroborative of each others, and
consistent with other believable evidence in the record. Further,
based on their demeanor, I found them to be trustworthy as
witnesses.
This is not to say that I discredit all of the testimony of the
Respondent’s witnesses, expecially where it does not conflict
with that of the General Counsel’s witnesses.21
However, of compelling significance in discrediting their
testimony where it conflicts with that of the General Counsel’s
witnesses, was the Respondent’s failure to call its superinten-
dent, Alek Pilat, as a witness, to rebut any of the testimony
given herein or to corroborate the testimony of the Respon-
dent’s witnesses. Pilat, it appears, was actively involved in
important issues and was uniquely situated with first-hand
knowledge and might well have been able to specifically detail
and clarify what had occurred.22
Analysis and Conclusions
The complaint alleges that Alek Pilat, the Respondent’s su-
perintendent, is a supervisor within the meaning of Section
2(11) of the Act and an agent of the Respondent, acting in its
behalf. The Respondent denies this.
Section 2(11) of the Act provides:

The term “supervisor means any individual having the author-
ity, In the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend,
layoff, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline

21 It is not unusual that, based on the evidence in the record, the tes-
timony of a witness may be credited in part, while other segments
thereof are discounted or disbelieved. Jefferson National Bank, 240
NLRB 1057 (1979), and cases cited therein.
22 From the failure of a party to produce material witnesses or rele-
vant evidence obviously within its control without satisfactory explana-
tion, the trier of the facts may draw an inference that such testimony or
evidence would be unfavorable to that party. Parkview Furniture Mfg.
Co., 284 NLRB 947 (1987); 7-Eleven Food Stores, 257 NLRB 108
(1981); Publishers Printing Co., 233 NLRB 1070 (1977).
The Respondent in its brief alleges that “General Counsel originally
subpoenaed superintendent Alek Pilat . . . previously required Mr. Pilat
to attend the hearing . . . [and] did not call him as a witness.” The Re-
spondent seeks an adverse inference as above to be drawn against Gen-
eral Counsel. However, I have read the entire record including all the
exhibits, and nowhere do I find any mention of the General Counsel
having subpoenaed Pilat or that Pilat was present at the trial. Pilat, as
will be indicated subsequently, was obviously within the control of the
Respondent who, if it wanted his testimony, should have called him as
its witness.
other employees, responsibility to direct them, or to adjust
their grievances, or effectively to recommend such actions, if
in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such author-
ity is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires
the use of independent judgment.

In enacting Section 2(11), Congress emphasized its intention
that only truly supervisory personnel vested with “geniune
management prerogatives” should be considered supervisors
and not “straw bosses, leadman, set-up men and other minor
supervisory employees.” S. Rep. No. 105, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
4 (1947).
The status of supervisor under the Act is determined by an
individual’s duties, not by his or her title or job classification.
New Fern Restorium Co., 175 NLRB 142 (1969); Longshore-
men ILA v. Davis, 476 U.S. 380, 396 fn. 13 (1986). It is well
settled that an employee cannot be transformed into a supervi-
sor merely by the visiting of a title and theoretical power to
perform one or more of the enumerated functions in Section
2(11) of the Act. Advanced Mining Group, 260 NLRB 486
(1982); Magnolia Nursing Home, 260 NLRB 377 (1982). To
qualify as a supervisor, it is not necessary that an individual
possess all of these powers. Rather, possession of any one of
them is sufficient to confer statutory status. Cypress Lawn
Cemetry, 300 NLRB 609 (1990); Superior Bakery, 294 NLRB
256 (1989), enfd. 893 F.2d 493 (2d. Cir. 1990); and Berger
Transfer & Storage Co., 678 F.2d 679 (7th Cir. 1982).
However, consistent with the statutory language and legisla-
tive intent, it is well recognized that Section 2(11)’s disjunctive
listing of supervisory indicia does not alter the essential con-
junctive requirement that a supervisor must exercise independ-
ent judgment in performing the enumerated functions. HS
Lordships, Wilson-Crissman Cadillac, 659 F.2d 728 (6th Cir.
1981). Indeed as the Court stated in Beverly Enterprises, 661
F.2d 1095 (6th Cir. 1981), “Regardless of the specific kind of
supervisory authority at issue, its exercise must involve the use
of true independent judgment in the employer’s, interest before
such exercise of authority becomes that of a supervisor.” Thus,
the exercise of some supervisory authority “in a merely routine,
clerical, perfunctory or sporadic manner does not elevate an
employee into the supervisory ranks,” the test must be the sig-
nificance of his judgment and directions. Wilson-Crissman
Cadillac, Inc., supra; Lakeview Health Center, 308 NLRB 75
(1992); Hydro Conduit Corp., 254 NLRB 433 (1981). Conse-
quently, an employee does not become a supervisor merely
because he gives some instructons or minor orders to other
employees. Wilson-Crissman Cadillac, supra.
Nor does an employee become a supervisor because he has
greater skills and job responsibilities or more duties than fellow
employees. Federal Compress Warehouse Co., 398 F.2d 631
(6th Cir. 1968). Additionally, the existence of independent
judgment alone will not suffice for “the decisive question is
whether [the employee has] been found to possess authority to
use independent judgment with respect to the exercise . . . of
some one or more of the specific authorities listed in Section
2(11) of the Act.” Advance Mining Group, supra; Brown &
Sharpe Mfg. Co., 169 F.2d 331 (1st Cir. 1948). In short, “some
kinship to management, some empathetic relationship between
PROPERTY MARKETS GROUP 205
employer and employee must exist before the latter becomes a
supervisor for the former.” Advance Mining Group, supra; Se-
curity Guard Service, Inc., 384 F.2d 1 (10th Cir. 1967). More-
over, in connection with the authority to recommend actions,
Section 2(11) of the Act requires that the recommendations
must be effective.
The burden of proving that an employee is a “supervisor”
within the meaning of the Act rests on the party alleging that
such status exists. Pine Brooks Care Center, 322 NLRB 740
(1996); Ohio Masonic Home, 295 NLRB 390 (1989); RAHCO,
Inc., 255 NLRB 235 (1983); Tucson Gas & Electric Co., 241
NLRB 181 (1979).23 Where the possession of any one of the
aforementioned powers is not conclusively established or “in
borderline cases” the Board looks to well-established secondary
indicia, including the individuals’ job title or designation as a
supervisor, attendance at supervisorial meetings, job responsi-
bilities, authority to grant time off etc., whether the individual
possess a status separate and apart from that of rank-and-file
employees. Chicago Metallic Corp., 794 F.2d 527 (9th Cir.
1986); Monarch Federal Savings & Loan, 237 NLRB 844
(1978); Flexi-Van Corp., 228 NLRB 956 (1977). However,
when there is no evidence that an individual possesses any one
of the several primary indicia for statutory status enumerated in
Section 2(11) of the Act, the secondary indicia are insufficient
by themselves to establish statutory supervisory status. J.C.
Brock Corp., 314 NLRB 157 (1994); St. Alphonsus Hospital,
261 NLRB 620 (1982). Additionally, whenever there is incon-
clusive or conflicting evidence on specific indicia of supervi-
sory authority, the Board will find that supervisory status has
not been established with respect to those criteria.
In Health Care & Retirement Corp., 511 U.S. 571 (1994),
the Supreme Court set forth the test for determining whether an
individual is to be deemed a supervisor. The Court noted that in
making a determination on the question of one’s supervisory
status:

[T]he statute requires the resolution of three questions and
each must be answered in the affirmative if an employee is to
be deemed a supervisor. First, does the employee have author-
ity to engage in one of the 12 listed activities [in section
2(11)]? Second, does the exercise of that authority require
“the use of independent judgment”? Third, does the employee
hold authority “in the interest of the employer”? [511 U.S.
573–574.]

Thus, the burden of proving that Alek Pilat is a supervisor
within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act rests on the
General Counsel who alleges this in the complaint. The evi-
dence shows that Building Superintendent Alek Pilat at 500
West End did not have the authority to hire, transfer, suspend,
lay off, recall, promote, discharge, reward, or discipline other
employees or adjust their grievances or effectively recommend
such action. However, the General Counsel contends that Pilat
assigned and directed the employees at 500 West End and that

23 However, in Health Care & Retirement Corp. of America, 987
F.2d 1256 (6th Cir. 1991), the Sixth Circuit held that the General Coun-
sel has the burden of establishing supervisory status.
this authority was exercised not in a merely routine or clerical
fashion, but required the use by him of independent judgment.
Applying the indicia of assignment and responsibility di-
rectly to the facts of a specific case is often difficult. There are
no hard and fast rules: instead each case turns on its own par-
ticular facts. Clearly, not all assignments and directions given
by an employee involve the exercise of supervisory authority.
Security Guard Service, 384 F.2d 143, 151 (5th Cir. 1967).
Consequently, the Board analyzes each case in order to differ-
entiate between the exercise of independent judgment and the
giving of routine instructions, between effective recommenda-
tions and forceful suggestion and between the appearance of
supervision and supervision in fact. Demco New York Corp.,
337 NLRB 850 (2002); McCullough Environmental Services,
306 NLRB 565 (1992), enf. denied 5 F.3d 923 (5th Cir. 1993).
Gervitz testified that Pilat assigned her duties outside her
normal ones, told her to fill in for other employees, gave her
permission to take vacation, and she referred to Pilat as her
current boss. Gervitz stated that she was never told to call Si-
monlacaj if she was out sick or wanted vacation. When Gervitz
moved out of the building she asked Pilat to call her to cover
for other employees. Gervitz related that Wendy Sanchez, one
of the Respondent’s managers, referred to Pilat as Gervitz’
supervisor. Also, when Gervitz asked Property Manager Si-
monlacaj, about covering for vacationing employees, he told
her to discuss this with Pilat.
Jagielo testified that Pilat authorized sick leave and vacation
time, told him to fill in for other employees, and assigned him
duties outside his normal ones. Jagielo stated that Pilat on one
occasion had referred to himself as the “boss.” Jagielo also
testified that Daisy Gonzalez, who Simonlacaj admitted was a
former director of the Respondent, told Jagielo to do whatever
the superintendent told him to do.
Upon the basis of the above, the General Counsel asserts that
the Respondent’s building superintendents “possessed several
of the indicia of supervisory authority and are, therefore, super-
visors within the meaning of the Act.” I do not agree.
The evidence shows that Alek Pilat is not a supervisor within
the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.24 He does not have
the authority to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote,
discharge, reward, or discipline other employees or adjust their
grievances or effectively recommend such action. Moreover,
General Counsel has failed to establish that Pilat’s assignment
of tasks whether routine or outside their regular duties, even of
his granting of sick leave or vacation time, required the use of
independent judgment on his part.25
The Respondent’s property manager, Simonlacaj makes all
decisions regarding discipline. Pilat does not have the authority
to issue disciplinary warnings and merely reports incidents to
24 The Board has often held that building superintendent’s are non-
supervisory employees. Cassis Management Corp., 323 NLRB 456,
459 (1997); Hagar Management Corp., 313 NLRB 438, 439 (1993);
J.R.R. Realty Co., 273 NLRB 1523, 1527 (1985); and Elias Mallouk
Realty Corp., 265 NLRB 1225, 1234 (1982).
25 Simonlacaj testified while employees call into Pilat to report sick
leave, Pilat will work it out. Only Simonlacaj can grant leave. More-
over, as to vacations, employees’ requests are made to Pilat but the
vacation schedules are made and approved by Simonlacaj.

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 206
Simonlacaj. As building superintendent, Pilat’s authority is
limited to directing, overseeing, and assigning the routine daily
functions of the employees at 500 West End, whose jobs are
almost entirely the routine execution of daily duties.
Indeed, repair and maintenance work performed by Pilat and
the handyman is often routine, but even where it is an emer-
gency repair, it is commonplace. Further, any decision concern-
ing which employee (the superintendent or the handyman) will
perform a given task is dependent upon the relative skills and
availability of the two men, with Pilat possessing greater ex-
perience. In such circumstances, any direction given by Pilat
would appear purely routine or clerical. Additionally, employ-
ees are required to contact Simonlacaj on personnel matters.
Moreover, Pilat is required to contact Simonlacaj for anything
out of the ordinary, i.e., a leaking pipe. Also. Simonlacaj is in
daily contact with Pilat by telephone and pager, and has regular
contact with the employees through his twice-a-week visits to
the building.
I conclude on the basis of the foregoing recital of facts that
the superintendents are not statutory supervisors within the
meaning of the Act, but are in the nature of more experienced,
senior employees who routinely supervise the maintenance of
the building, but subject to regular and constant higher supervi-
sion. Accordingly, I find that the superintendents do not assign
and direct unit employees in a manner requiring the use of in-
dependent judgment, nor do they possess any other indicia of
supervisory status within the meaning of Section 2(11).26
General Counsel also asserts that, “Assuming, arguendo, that
Pilat and former superintendents were not supervisors, the evi-
dence demonstrates no question but that they were Respon-
dent’s agents.”

Section 2(13) of the act provides:

In determining whether any person is acting as an “agent” of
another person so as to make such other person responsible
for his acts, the question of whether the specific acts per-
formed were actually authorized or subsequently ratified shall
not be controlling.

Legislative history dictates that the Board is to apply common
law principles of agency in determining who is an agent under
the Act. See Longshoremen ILA (Coastal Stevedoring Co.), 313
NLRB 412, 415 (1993), remanded 56 F.3d 205 (D.C. Cir.
1995). In Longshoremen ILA (Coastal Stevedoring Co.) supra,
the Board noted that “when applied to labor relations, however,
agency principles must be broadly construed in light of the
legislative policies embedded in the Act.” Moreover, in Shen
Automotive Dealership Group, 321 NLRB 586, 593 (1996), the
Board held that the “common law principles of agency incorpo-
rate principles of implied and apparent authority.” See Service
Employees Local 87 (West Bay Maintenance), 291 NLRB 82
(1988) in which the Board noted:

26 Cassis Management Corp., supra; Hagar Management Corp., su-
pra; J.R.R. Realty Co., supra; Elias Mallouk Realty Corp., supra. Also
see Mississippi Power & Light, 328 NLRB 965, 972 (1999); Washing-
ton Nursing Home, Inc., 321 NLRB 366, 372 (1996); Kent Products,
289 NLRB 824 (1988); and Delta Mills, 287 NLRB 367 (1987).
Apparent authority is created through a manifestation
by the principal to a third party that supplies a reasonable
basis for the latter to believe that the principal has author-
ized the alleged agent to do the act in question. Donkin’s
Inn, 532 F.2d 138, 141 (9th Cir. 1976); Alliance Rubber
Co., 286 NLRB 645, 646 fn.4 (1987). Thus, either the
principal must intend to cause the third person to believe
that the agent is authorized to act for him, or the principal
should realize that this conduct is likely to create such be-
lief. Restatement 2d, Agency Section 27 (1958, Com-
ment). Two conditions, therefore, must be satisfied before
apparent authority is deemed created: (1) there must be
some manifestation by the principal to a third party, and
(2) the third party must believe that the extent of the au-
thority granted to the agent encompasses the contemplated
activity. Id. at Section 8.

See also Great American Products, 312 NLRB 962, 963
(1993); Dentech Corp., 294 NLRB 925 (1989).
As stated in a more subjective manner, “an employer can be
responsible for the conduct of an employee, as an agent, where
under all the circumstances the employees would reasonably
believe that the individual was reflecting company policy and
acting on behalf of management.” Kosher Plaza Supermarket,
313 NLRB 74, 85 (1993); Shen Automotive Dealership Group,
supra. The Board has also held that the burden of proof is on
the party asserting that an agency relationship exists. Shen
Automobile Dealership Group, supra. Also see National Gyp-
som, 293 NLRB 1138 (1989), enfd 901 F.2d 1130 (D.C. Cir.
1990); Matheson Fast Freight, 297 NLRB 63 (1989).
That the superintendents are agents of the Respondent whose
statements and conduct would be binding upon it is clearly
evidenced in the instant case. After Simonlacaj and then Joseph
held meetings with the employees detailing what was expected
of the employees pursuant to the building’s conversion, Si-
monlacaj directed Pilat to hold a third meeting on May 29,
2001, to reiterate what management expected of them. The
employees could only believe that Pilat was speaking to them
as an agent of the Respondent when he passed along manage-
ment rules and regulations as told to the employees at the pre-
vious meetings. When Gervitz asked Pilat if she could fill in for
other employees she was told that management had instructed
him not to allow her to do so. Additionally, when Jagielo woke
Pilat up to find out who his relief on the job was, when fellow
employee Kolandreo went on vacation and Pilat angrily told
him he would tell the building owner to fire him, Jagielo was so
worried and believed that this could occur because Pilat was so
closely identified with management that he returned to apolo-
gize to Pilat for waking him. Pilat responded to Jagielo’s appeal
to management regarding his 2000 vacation request. Moreover,
Respondent’s manager, Wendy Sanchez, referred to Pilat as
Gervitz’ supervisor and former director, Daisy Gonzalez, told
Jagielo to do whatever the superintendent told him to do. Also,
Kukaj told Jagielo that if he attended Vladimir Gervitz’ arbitra-
tion he would be fired and Jagielo believed that would happen
and did not at first appear at the hearing.
Thus, from Pilat and the former superintendents real and
perceived authority over the Respondent’s employees, includ-
PROPERTY MARKETS GROUP 207
ing all of the above, the Respondent can be held responsible for
their conduct as its agents, “where under all the circumstances
the employees would reasonably believe that [Pilat and the
former superintendents] were reflecting company policy and
acting on behalf of management.” Shen Automobile Dealership
Group, supra; Kosher Plaza Supermarket, supra.
The test for agency is whether under all the circumstances,
an employee could reasonably believe that the alleged agent or
agents were reflecting company policy and speaking for man-
agement. That test is met here. Waterbed World, 286 NLRB
425, 426–427 (1987). Moreover, as Section 2(13) of the Act
provides, “the question of whether specific acts performed were
actually authorized or subsequently ratified shall not be control-
ling.”
I therefore find and conclude that Alek Pilat and former Su-
perintendent Ricky Kukaj are agents of the Respondent acting
on its behalf within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.
Also see J.R.R. Realty Co., supra; B-P Custom Building Prod-
ucts, 251 NLRB 1337, 1338 (1980).
The Respondent’s Past Conduct as Animus
In May 1998, Jagielo filed charges with the Board. On May
13, 1998, 2 days after receiving notice of this charge, the Re-
spondent issued a warning notice to Jagielo detailing a series of
alleged violations that occurred 1 to 3 months earlier. Before
Jagielo had filed this charge with the Board, the Respondent’s
practice was to issue him any warnings promptly and usually
with regard to events which occurred on one particular date.
This, when considered with the timing of the warning notice, its
asserted lack of merit, and the disparate treatment accorded
Jagielo compared to other employees engaged in the same al-
leged violations, an inference can reasonably be drawn that the
Respondent issued the May 13 warning notice to Jagielo be-
cause he filed charges with the Board.27 That Jagielo may have
received prior warnings, which he contended were unmerited
but which may not have been unlawful under the Act, does not
mean that every unmerited warning should be excused as law-
ful. Unlawful warnings can follow lawful ones. Teksid Alumi-
num Foundry, 311 NLRB 711, 721 (1993).
In December 1998, the then-Superintendent Ricky Kukaj
threatened Jagielo with discharge if he attended and testified at
Vladimir Gervitz’ arbitration hearing as a witness for the Un-
ion, although subpoenaed to appear. Since I found that Superin-
tendent Kukaj was an agent of the Respondent, his threat to
Jagielo indicates the Respondent’s intention at the time to dis-
courage Jagielo’s participation in an activity on behalf of the
Union.
After the arbitrator’s decision in Vladimir Gervitz’ arbitra-
tion case, requiring the Gervitz’ to vacate their apartment at 500
West End Avenue, but also requiring the Respondent to pay
Vladimir Gervitz 9 weeks of severance pay, the Respondent in

27 An important element in establishing a violation of the Act is tim-
ing. Armstronmg Rubber Co., 238 NLRB 625, 626 (1987), enfd. 849
F.2d 608 (6th Cir. 1988); Wayne W. Sell Corp., 281 NLRB 529 (1986),
also as are pretexual motives, Waste Stream Management, 315 NLRB
1099, 1126 (1994), and disparate treatment, Fluor Daniel, Inc., 304
NLRB 970, 971 (1991), enfd. 976 F.2d 744 (11th Cir. 1992), rehearing
denied 980 F.2d 1449 (11th Cir. 1992).
April 2000, within 2 months of the arbitration decision and
within 1 month of the payment to Vladimir Gervitz, ceased
allowing Vladimir’s wife Nadya to cover for absent employees
although in prior years she had done this 80 percent of the time.
Moreover, the Respondent now stated that it would use tempo-
rary outside workers to cover for absent doormen, something it
had never done before.
Prior to April 2000, Gervitz had received only one written
warning issued on September 26, 1997, over 2-1/2 years earlier.
While Gervitz admitted leaving the elevator unattended, the
basis for the warning notice, she explained that she did so to
help a tenant with luggage as she was expected to do.28 Addi-
tionally, after Gervitz filed a charge with the Board regarding
this, the Respondent then began to again allow her replacement
work, on a limited basis. The timing of the Respondent’s deci-
sion to cease offering Gervitz replacement work, Gervitz’ past
record of only one written warning 2-1/2 years earlier, and the
Respondent’s decision to suddenly begin using outside tempo-
rary workers to cover for vacationing employees, raises the
implication that the real reason the Respondent stopped allow-
ing Gervitz to cover for absent employees, a job she had per-
formed for years, was antiunion animus.
It is interesting to note that Pilat at first approved Jagielo’s
request for vacation and then in April and May 2000 denied
Jagielo’s request after he learned that another more senior em-
ployee wanted the same vacation time. Pilat told Jagielo that he
could not take his vacation at the same time as Menarkovich,
the other employee, and that management did not like Union
members and was unhappy with Jagielo because he testified at
the arbitration hearing.29
However, the record shows that the Respondent does allow
two employees to take vacation at the same time. Gervitz testi-
fied without contradiction that Jagielo and fellow employee
Kolandreo had taken their vacations at the same time. Addi-
tionally, after Jagielo filed a charge with the Board regarding
the Respondent’s failure to grant him his vacation, the Respon-
dent allowed Jagielo to take the vacation he requested, and at
the same time as Menarkovich did. When Pilat denied Jagielo’s
vacation request he told him that the Respondent did not like
the union members and was unhappy that Jagielo had testified
at Vladimir Gervitz’ arbitration hearing. While Simonlacaj
denied ever discussing the Union with Pilat, as indicated here-
28 Simonlacaj testified that prior to April 2000, he had received sev-
eral tenant complaints about Gervitz’ inappropriately questioning their
help and their children. By letter dated February 12, 1999, a tenant
complained about this to the Respondent. Simonlacaj testified that he
did not issue Gervitz a warning letter about this or the other tenant
complaints, but instead told Gervitz not to engage in such conduct.
Gervitz denied ever inappropriately questioning anyone and that Si-
monlacaj ever spoke to her about such issues. The fact that the Respon-
dent did not issue Gervitz a written warning about this alleged inappro-
priate behavior on her part would support Gervitz’ denial of having
done this and that no one spoke to her about the issues in the letter.
29 Coincidentally, the denial of vacation to Jagielo, who with Ger-
vitz, were the only two employees who testified at Vladmir Gervitz’
arbitration hearing, took place at the same time that the Respondent
denied Gervitz the right to cover for absent employees, and within 2
months of the arbitrator’s decision and within 1 month of the severance
payment to Vladimir Gervitz.

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 208
inbefore, the Respondent failed to call superintendent Pilat,
found to be its agent, whom it stilll employs, to testify, leaving
Jagielo’s testimony unrefuted.30
Given the timing and pretextual nature of the Respondent’s
refusal to initially grant Jagielo his vacation, and the unrefuted
testimony that Pilat stated that this refusal was because man-
agement was unhappy with Jagielo because he was a union
member and had testified at the arbitration hearing it seems
clear that he was denied his vacation because of his union ac-
tivities.
Of additional significance is the credible testimony of Pilat’s
numerous statements evincing the Respondent’s animus to-
wards the Union. When Jagielo was hired Pilat told him that the
Respondent did not like Jagielo because he testified at Vladimir
Gervitz’ arbitration. Pilat repeated this in April 2000, and again
early this year. Moreover, Pilat on several occasions, the last
one occurring in August 2001, told Jagielo that the Respondent
did not like union members and that the union members should
be careful or they could be fired. Gervitz testified that at the
May 29, 2001 meeting, Pilat stated that the employees had a big
salary,31 could get fired at any time, and, if that happened, no
one would help them; that if they went to the Union, it would
take many years.32
Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice
for an employer to discriminate “in regard to hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment to en-
courage or discourage membership in any labor organization.”
Under the test announced in Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083
(1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455
U.S. 989 (1982), approved in Transportation Management
Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (1983), a discharge is violative of the Act
only if the employee’s protected conduct is a substantial or
motivating factor for the employer’s action. If the General
Counsel carries his/her burden of persuading that the employer
acted out of antiunion animus, the burden of persuasion then
shifts to the employer to prove its affirmative defense that it
would have taken the same action even if the employees had
not engaged in protected activity. Office of Workers Compensa-
tion Programs v. Greenwich Collieries, 512 U.S. 267, 277
(1994); Southwest Merchandising Corp., 53 F.3d 1334 (D.C.
Cir. 1995); Manno Electric, 321 NLRB 278 fn. 12 (1996);
Wright Line, supra. Also see J. Huizinga Cartage Co., 941 F.2d

30 General Counsel contends, “[I]t is well settled that the failure by a
party to call knowledgeable persons as witnesses gives rise to an infer-
ence that, had they been called, their accounts would not have been
favorable to that party.” United Technologies Corp., 277 NLRB 584,
585 (1985), and asserts that such an adverse inference is warranted
here. I agree. Also see fn. 22.
31 While there is no current collective bargaining in effect, the Re-
spondent continues to pay employees the same wages and benefits as it
did under the expired bargaining contract. Air Vac Industries, 282
NLRB 703, 712 (1987).
32 As for Simonlacaj’s denial that he told Pilat that he wanted em-
ployees fired because of their union activity, his denial is not credible
in view of the Respondent’s failure to call Pilat to deny the statements
attributed to him. United Technologies Corp., supra. Also see fn. 22.
616 (7th Cir. 1991).33 However, when an employer’s motives
for its actions are found to be false the circumstances, may
warrant an inference that the true motivation is an unlawful one
that the employer desires to conceal. Shattuck Denn Mining
Corp., 362 F.2d 466 (9th Cir. 1966); Limestone Apparel Corp.,
255 NLRB 722 (1981); Golden Flake Snake Foods, 297 NLRB
594 fn. 2 (1990). See also Peter Vitalie Co., 313 NLRB 971
(1994). The motive may be inferred from the total circum-
stances proved. Moreover, the Board may properly look to
circumstantial evidence in determining whether the employer’s
actions were illegally motivated. Associacion Hospital del
Maestro, 291 NLRB 198 (1988); White-Evans Services Co.,
285 NLRB 81 (1987); O’Hare-Midway Limousine Service, 924
F.2d 692 (7th Cir.1991). That finding may be based on the
Board’s review of the record as a whole. ACTIV Industries, 277
NLRB 356 (1985); Health International, 196 NLRB 318
(1972).
In carrying its burden of persuasion under the first part of the
Wright Line test the Board requires the General Counsel first to
persuade that antiunion sentiment was a substantial or motivat-
ing factor in the challenged employer decision. Manno Electric,
Inc., supra at fn. 12. Wright Line, supra. In establishing unlaw-
ful motivation, the General Counsel must prove not only that
the employer knew of the employees union activities or sympa-
thies, but also that the timing of the alleged reprisals was
proximate to the protected activities and that there was anti-
union animus to “link the factors of timing and knowledge to
the improper motivation.” Hall Construction, 941 F.2d 684 (8th
Cir. 1991); Service Employees Local 434-B, 316 NLRB 1059
(1995).
Additionally, the Board in Ferragon Corp., 318 NLRB 359,
361 (1995), enfd. 88 F.3d 1278 (D.C. Cir. 1996), stated:

As explained in W.R. Case & Sons Cutlery Co., 307
NLRB 1457, 1463 (1992), “a prima facie case [of dis-
criminatory motivation] is made out by proof of employee
union activity, along with employer knowledge of, and
employer animus toward, it.”

The Refusal to Assign Nadya Gervitz her Normal Amount
of Replacement Work
In this case, the evidence establishes that Gervitz is a union
member and participated in her husband’s arbitration hearing.
Gervitz also filed a charge with the Board which alleged that, in
2000, she had been denied the right to substitute for absent
employees because of her union activities. It is clear that the
Respondent was aware of Gervitz’ union membership, her tes-
timony at the arbitration, and the charge she filed. Additionally,
in numerous acts and statements, the last of which occurred
earlier this year, the Respondent evinced animus toward both
Gervitz and Jagielo because of their union activity and their
seeking the Board’s assistance in their rights under the Act.
33 An employer simply cannot present a legitimate reason for its ac-
tion but must persuade by a preponderance of the evidence that the
same action would have taken place even in the absence of the pro-
tected conduct. T & J Trucking Co., 316 NLRB 771 (1995); GSX
Corp., 918 F.2d 1351 (8th Cir. 1990).
PROPERTY MARKETS GROUP 209
In 2000, the Respondent refused to allow Gervitz to cover
for other employees and then permitted her to do so after she
filed a charge with the Board. However, in 2001, the Respon-
dent once again refused to allow Gervitz to replace employees.
Since August 2001, Gervitz, who previously covered for absent
employees 80 percent of the time, has covered for employees
only about 10 days although employees have taken a total of 15
weeks of vacation.
From the above, I find that General Counsel has made out a
prima facie case that the Respondent discriminated against
Nadya Gervitz by refusing to allow her to cover for absent em-
ployees since August 2001, because of her union membership
and activities. Once General Counsel has made a prima facie
showing sufficient to support the inference that the protected
conduct motivated the employer’s actions, the burden shifts to
the employer to demonstrate that its same action would have
taken place even in the absence of the protected conduct.
Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st
Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982).
The Respondent asserts that because of the need for an in-
creased level of performance by the staff due to the conversion
of the building to expensive condominium units, Nadya Gervitz
was not qualified to cover for other employees. Simonlacaj
testified that Gervitz was “horrible” as an employee, and that he
received many complaints about her before and after Gervitz
became a doorman in January 2001. The record shows that
Gervitz had received only two warning notices in 5 years, both
of which Gervitz asserted were unmerited,34 and interestingly,
neither of these warnings mentioned any of the problems the
Respondent alleged it had with Gervitz, i.e., that she had a bad
attitude, was discourteous, indiscrete, and failed to announce
visitors.35 Moreover, it would seem incredible that upon the
change from elevator operators to doormen and in upgrading
the quality of the building to expensive condominium units, the
Respondent would make Gervitz a doorman in January 2001, if
the Respondent had been having the problems it allegedly was
having with her.
The Board has stated that although timing is a factor in
establishing a violation, “[i]t is also well settled . . . that when
an employer’s stated motives for its actions are found to be
false, the circumstances may warrant an inference that the true
motivation is an unlawful one that the employer desires to
conceal. The motive may be inferred from the total
circumstances proved.” Waste Stream Management, 315 NLRB
1099, 1126 (1994).

From all of the evidence, I find that the reason offered by the
Respondent as its defense for taking away Gervitz’ right to
cover for absent employees to the extent she had done so previ-
ously is not its true motive for such action. This, together with
the totality of the circumstances; the history of the Respon-
dent’s discriminatory actions toward Gervitz and Jagielo—the

34 Gervitz’ first written warning in September 26, 1997, was for
leaving her post as an elevator operator. The second warning was on
May 25, 2001, for leaving her post as a doorman unattended.
35 Gervitz denied failing to announce visitors and that the Respon-
dent never told her that she failed to announce visitors or complained to
her about her being indiscreet.
only two employees who testified at Vladimir Gervitz’ arbitra-
tion hearing, the Respondent’s statements of animus against the
Union which continued into 2002, her filing of charges with the
Board against the Respondent, lead inexorably to the conclu-
sion that it is the Respondent’s animus towards Nadya Gervitz’
union activities and membership that motivated it to deny Ger-
vitz work covering absent employees.
From all of the above, I find and conclude that the Respon-
dent discriminated against Nadya Gervitz by denying her re-
placement work since August 2001 because of her union mem-
bership and activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act.36
December 12, 2001 Warning Letter to Gervitz
The issuance of a warning notice in retaliation for union ac-
tivities is a violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. Han-
son Aggregates Central, Inc., 337 NLRB 870 (2002).
On December 12, 2001, Gervitz received a warning letter for
allegedly “inappropriately entering the superintendent’s office
without supervision” and “being . . .” alone in the superinten-
dent’s office watching the building’s security monitoring sys-
tem.” The warning alleges that the superintendent’s office is
where confidential materials and keys to the tenants’ apart-
ment’s are stored. Gervitz credibly testified that she had looked
at the surveillance monitor as she was leaving the cleaning
supply room and that the monitor is not located in the superin-
tendent’s office. Gervitz stated that the room with the monitor
does not contain any confidential documents or tenants’ keys.
Gervitz’ union activity and the Respondent’s knowledge of
this and animus towards that activity, and the timing of the
warning notice apparently in relation to her union activities,
and Pilat’s statements that the Respondent did not like its em-
ployees being union members and would like to get rid of them,
support a finding that the General Counsel has made out a
prima facie case that the December 12, 2001 warning notice to
Nadya Gervitz was in retaliation for her union membership and
activities. Moreover, when Pilat gave Gervitz the warning no-
tice he told her that she had to be very careful because the own-
ers would do everything possible, even put incorrect things in
warning letters, to catch her and Jagielo and fire them. This
testimony was not controverted.37
36 The Respondent’s refusal to allow Gervitz to cover for absent em-
ployees since August 2001, because of her union membership and
activities amounted to a reduction in her work assignments and equiva-
lent to reducing Gervitz’ earning potential and is a violation of Sec.
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance
Cos., 333 NLRB 850 (2001); Lawson Printers, 271 NLRB 1279, 1284-
1285 (1984); Jimmy Dean Meat Co., 227 NLRB 1012, 1020–1021
(1977); A & S Electronic Die Corp., 172 NLRB 1478, 1481 (1968),
enfd. 423 F.2d 218 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. denied 400 U.S. 833 (1970).
37 As indicted above, the Respondent did not produce Pilat to contest
this testimony and therefore it can be inferred that Pilat made this
statement. United Technologies Corp., 277 NLRB 584, 585 (1985). As
there is no reason other than Gervitz’ union activity for Pilat to make
such a threat, the Respondent violated the Act. The threat to discharge
an employee because of her union sympathy and activity is a violation
of Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act. Chateau de Ville, 233 NLRB 1161, 1168
(1977); Holding Co., 231 NLRB 383, 384 (1977).

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 210
Additionally, the record is replete with instances of disparate
treatment of Gervitz who received warnings for breaking some
nonexistent rules while other employees received no warnings
for ignoring existing rules, i.e., complaints by brokers about
being kept waiting or not being announced, which could not be
attributed to Gervitz because of her work hours, employee Gie-
laj was not warned for his smoking on the job, and Gervitz
observed employee Alarcon sitting while on duty after the rule
about no sitting came out. Disparate treatment supports a prima
facie case of discrimination. Fluor Daniel, Inc., 304 NLRB
970, 971 (1991), enfd. 976 F.2d 744 (11th Cir. 1992), rehearing
denied 980 F.2d 1449 (11th Cir. 1992).
The Respondent contends that, “Clearly, Ms. Gervitz’
December 12, 2001 warning letter was not only void of union
animus,” but was fully justified based on her violations of ac-
cepted work rules. However, while there is no question that
Gervitz was in the room with the monitor she was breaking no
accepted rule by being there. Gervitz was never told not to go
into the room with the monitor. Even assuming arguendo, that
the room with the monitor was the superintendent’s office,
Simonlacaj admitted that he never told an employee not to enter
the superintendent’s office and further admitted that if Gervitz
needed to speak to the superintendent it would not be unreason-
able for her to go to his office. Moreover, Gervitz testified that
she never entered the superintendent’s office unless he was
present.
Additionally, the Respondent has failed to clearly establish
that the room with the monitor was the superintendent’s office.
Although the Respondent produced a warning letter to Pilat
dated October 18, 2001 stating that the superintendent’s office
was to be moved, to the lobby, there was no evidence produced
by the Respondent that this actually was done. Gervitz testiied
that the superintendent’s office had not been moved to the
lobby and since Pilot was not called to refute her testimony, I
accept it as credible.
When the reasons given for a warning are false or do not ex-
ist, the inference can be drawn under the circumstances that
such a warning was issued for retaliatory reasons. Waste
Streams Management, supra. Thus the Respondent has failed to
rebut the General Counsel’s prima facie case. Hanson Aggre-
gateo Central, Inc., supra. From all of the above, including
Pilot’s statement to Gervitz when he handed her the warning
notice, that the Respondent would do everything possible, even
put incorrect things in warning letters, to catch Gervitz and
Jagielo and fire them, I find and conclude that the Respondent
violated Secion 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act when it issued Ger-
vitz a warning letter on December 12, 2001, and threatened her
with discharge in retaliation for her union membership and
activities.
December 12, 2001 Warning Notice to Jagielo
The Respondent issued Jagielo a warning letter on December
12, 2001, that he was found smoking on the job, had refused to
get a tenant’s dry cleaning from the package room, and had
failed to offer assistance with the tenant’s packages. Jagielo
denied smoking on the job, had not been asked to get the dry
cleaning from the package room, and anyway, would have been
in contravention of management’s instructions had he, in fact,
gone to the package room.
Jagielo is a member of the Union. He was also the only other
employee besides Nadya Gervitz, who had testified for the
Union in Vladimir Gervitz’ arbitration proceeding. Moreover,
Jagielo had filed charges with the Board alleging retaliation
against him for his union activities. The Respondent was aware
of all of this. Further, as indicated above, the Respondent had
evidenced animus toward both Jagielo and Gervitz because of
their union activities.
From the above, I find that the General Counsel has estab-
lished a prima facie case that the warning notice of December
12, 2001, to Jagielo was issued in retaliation for his union ac-
tivities in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
The Respondent defends this action on the basis that the
warning notice was merited and not issued because of Jagielo’s
union activities. Joseph testified that a tenant, Allison Fried,
had complained to him that Jagielo had failed to offer her assis-
tance when she was carrying packages, did not help her get her
dry cleaning from the package room, and instead lit up a ciga-
rette. First, it should be noted that Fried was not called as a
witness to testify as to what had occurred. Second, Jagielo de-
nied smoking on the job. Additionally, even assuming arguendo
that Fried had asked Jagielo to leave the doorway, assist her in
carrying her packages and retrieving her dry cleaning from the
package room, both Simonlacaj and Pilat had told the employ-
ees that they were not to leave the door unattended to go to the
package room, and Jagielo’s doing so would fly in the face of
these admonitions.
From all the evidence herein, and the Respondent’s evident
aniumus toward the union members, and the disparate treatment
of Jagielo and Gervitz, I am lead to the conclusion that the rea-
son given by the Respondent for the warning notice to him was
not its real reason, the Respondent’s true reason being Jagielo’s
union activities. It should also be remembered that Pilat had
told Gervitz that the owner would do everything possible, even
put incorrect things in warning letters, to in effect build up a
case, to catch Jagielo and Gervitz, so that it could fire them.
I therefore, find that when the Respondent issued its Decem-
ber 12, 2001 warning notice to Jagielo, the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. Waste Stream Management,
supra; Hanson Aggregateo Central, Inc., supra.
Jagielo Works a Double Shift
In December 2001, Jagielo was asked to cover for another
employee, Alarcon who failed to relieve Jagielo after his shift
had ended. Pilat directed Jagielo to cover for Alarcon. Jagielo
testified that he asked Pilat if Nadya Gervitz, a part-time
worker, anxious to cover for absent employees, could cover for
Alarcon because if Jagielo did so, he would be working 24
hours in a 32-hour period. Jagielo stated that Pilat told him if he
did not cover for Alarcon he would in effect be fired, “[he]
should not come anymore.”
The Respondent asserts that while “it occurs infrequently”,
the general practices is for a doorman to remain on his or her
post until relieved. In this case it amounted to Jagielo working a
double shift. Normally, I would agree with the Respondent that
this in itself did not constitute a violation of the Act since this is
PROPERTY MARKETS GROUP 211
an “industry accepted practice.” However, various circum-
stances present in this case require additional consideration.
The Respondent’s knowledge of and animus towards Jagielo’s
union activity. Pilat’s threat that if Jagielo refused to work the
double shift he would be fired. Also, the availability of one of
the Respondent’s part-time workers, Gervitz, who had indicated
her eagerness to fill in for absent employees.
From the above, I can only infer that by making Jagielo work
the double shift at that time and under these circumstances it
was for the reason to impose more stringent working conditions
on Jagielo in retaliation for his union activities in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. Georgia Farm Bureau, su-
pra; Maywood, Inc., 251 NLRB 979, 987–991 (1980).
Nadya Gervitz and Kazimierz Jagielo are Denied a
Christmas Bonus in 2001
The evidence shows that Gervitz and Jagielo were the only
two employees who did not receive Christmas bonuses in 2001.
The Respondent’s animus towards the union activity of these
two employees has been discussed above. Moreover, the Re-
spondent gave Christmas bonuses to all other employees, none
of whom testified at Vladimir Gervitz’ arbitration, or had filed
charges with the Board alleging discrimination by the Respon-
dent against them because of their union activity and, according
to the credited and uncontroverted testimony of Gervitz and
Jagielo, some of these other employees had engaged in infrac-
tions of the Respondent’s rules and regulations without penalty.
Simonlacaj testified that he denied Gervitz a bonus because
of the verbal and written warnings she had received precipitated
by complaints from tenants and brokers during 2001. As dis-
cussed above, I found that these written warnings were issued
to Gervitz mainly because of her union activity and the Re-
spondent’s animus towards the Union. It is therefore highly
suspicious that the Respondent singled out not to receive
Christmas bonuses the two employees, Gervitz and Jagielo,
who had both testified at Vladimir Gervitz’ arbitration and
further had filed charges against the Respondent with the Board
alleging discrimination based on their union activities.
Simonlacaj also testified that Jagielo failed to receive a bo-
nus because he did not dress properly in his uniform, failing to
wear his uniform tie and hat, and was unpleasant when criti-
cized about this. Jagielo testified that he had explained to Si-
monlacaj that his uniform had been stolen, and denied that he
was unpleasant to Simonlacaj when they discussed this. Si-
monlacaj stated that he had spoken to Jagielo about wearing a
hat and tie unsuccessfully but during the incident above, the
Respondent’s witnesses did testify that the day was very hot,
another employee Alarcon was not wearing his hat either, and
no written warning was issued to either employee. Alarcon,
however, did receive a Christmas bonus.
Simonlacaj also testified that he had told Jagielo that he
should not be sitting or eating on the job. Both Gervitz and
Jagielo testified that until they received the Respondent’s list of
rules on or about December 12, 2001, they had never been told
that sitting was forbidden. While Simonlacaj testified that the
no sitting rule was in effect since January 2001, the credited
testimony of Gervitz and Jagielo is further supported by the list
of rules issued by the Respondent’s on April 27, 2001, which
makes no mention of employees being forbidden to sit. More-
over, Jagielo never received a warning for sitting on the job,
and even after the end of the year rules came out, as Gervitz
testified, Alarcon sat while on duty in front of Pilat without
receiving any warning, and Alacon received a Christmas bonus.
As to eating while on duty, this was not listed in the April
27, 2001 rules, and Jagielo received no warnings for eating
while on duty. Eating while on duty may well have been a ne-
cessity since Jagielo was not given a lunch hour, night shift
doormen such as Jagielo had to eat on duty because there was
no one to relieve them, and again as Gervitz testified uncontra-
dictedly, Alarcon the recipient of a Christmas bonus, ate while
on duty in front of Pilat without notice of warning from the
Respondent.
Also, Simonlacaj appeared to specifically hold against
Jagielo the general complaints from brokers about doormen
smoking, not being at their posts, not being courteous, and not
helping tenants. However, Jagielo worked the 11 p.m. shift
every day but Sunday, a time when brokers appeared only in-
frequently. Moreover, Joseph’s testimony that he was told that
doormen weren’t opening doors and greating people semed to
apply to all doormen, all of whom, other than Jagielo and Ger-
vitz, received bonuses. Interestingly, Joseph testified that he
had observed that Jagielo was not “smooth” with someone en-
tering the building. When Joseph coached him, however,
Jagielo “smoothed” out his style, to correct his behavior.
While the record shows that Gervitz and Jagielo had received
bonuses in prior years, the evidence supports the conclusion
that the failure of the Respondent to give them bonuses in 2001
was because of their union membership and activities and
therefore, based on the Respondent’s discrimination against
them was in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
Iliana Transit Warehouse Corp., 323 NLRB 111, 118–119
(1997).
Threat to Discharge Jagielo
Jagielo testified that in late January 2002, knowing that Viny
Kolandreo was on vacation, Jagielo called Pilat, when he was
finishing his shift in the early morning to find out if a replace-
ment for him had been found. Pilat started to scream at Jagielo
that Jagielo had woken Pilat and his family and that he was
going to tell the Respondent to terminate his job. Jagielo then
went home and being extremely worried about losing his job,
he returned and spoke to Pilat, telling him that he was very
sorry about what happened. Pilat then told him not to worry,
that there is no problem.
The General Counsel in her brief asserts that in view of the
numerous statements Pilat made against Jagielo for his union
activity, the last of which occurred around the time he threat-
ened Jagielo with discharge, the logical inference is that the
threat was made because of Jagielo’s union activity. I do not
find the evidence sufficient to draw such an inference. This
incident clearly stands out to me as one isolated from Jagielo’s
union activities. According to Jagielo’s testimony, he woke
Pilat and his family early in the morning. That Pilat was very
annoyed at Jagielo for this is obvious and when Jagielo re-
turned and Pilat quieted down, Pilat told him not to worry about
it. I do not find under these circumstances that Pilat threatened

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 212
to discharge Jagielo because of his union activities in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECTS OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
ON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, found to constitute unfair labor practices occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent described in
section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation-
ship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent unlawfully discriminated
against Nadya Gervitz and Kazimierz Jagielo, the Respondent
shall be ordered to make them whole for any loss of earnings or
other benefits by reason of the discrimination against them in
accordance with the Board’s decision in Ogle Protection Ser-
vice, 183 NLRB 682 (1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir.
1971),38 with interest computed as in New Horizons for the
Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987). These amounts should in-
clude the Christmas bonuses with interest for Gervitz and
Jagielo that they were denied. Additionally, Nadya Gervitz
should be made whole with interest as computed above for the
Respondent’s failure to allow her to cover for absent employees
to be determined at the supplemental stage of these proceed-
ings.
Having found that the Respondent unlawfully issued written
warnings to Nadya Gervitz and Kazimierz Jagielo dated De-
cember 12, 2001, the Respondent shall be ordered to rescind
such warning notices to Gervitz and Jagielo.
Because of the nature of the unfair labor practices found
here, and in order to make effective the interdependent guaran-
tees of Section 7 of the Act, I recommend that the Respondent
be ordered to refrain from in any like or related manner abridg-
ing any of the rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the
Act. The Respondent shall also be required to post the custom-
ary notice.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Property Markets Group, Inc. is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
2. Local 32B–32J, SEIU, AFL–CIO is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. At all material
times, Nadya Gervitz and Kazimierz Jagielo have been mem-
bers of the Union.
3. At all material times, John Simonlacaj (property manager)
and Elliot Joseph (asset manager) have been supervisors of the
Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and
agents of the Respondent, acting in its behalf.

38 American Tissue Corp., 336 NLRB 435 fn. 3 (2001).
4. At all times material, herein superintendent Alek Pilat has
been an agent of the Respondent, acting in its behalf.
5. Since August 2001 the Respondent has unlawfully failed
and refused to allow Nadya Gervitz to cover for absent em-
ployees, to the extent previously allowed, in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
6. That on December 12, 2001, the Respondent unlawfully
issued Gervitz a warning letter in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act. When Pilat delivered the warning letter to
Gervitz, Pilat threatened her with discharge because of her
union activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
7. That on December 12, 2001, the Respondent unlawfully
issued Jagielo a warning letter in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act.
8. In December 2001, the Respondent unlawfully compelled
Jagielo to work a double shift in retaliation for his Union activi-
ties in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
9. In or about December 2001, the Respondent unlawfully
failed to give Gervitz and Jagielo Christmas bonuses because of
their membership in and activities for the Union in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
10. The Respondent did not violate the Act in any other man-
ner.
11. The aforesaid unfair labor practices constitute unfair la-
bor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended39
ORDER
The Respondent, Property Markets Group, Inc., New York
City, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to allow Nadya Gervitz to cover for
absent employees since August 2001, to the extent she did so
previously, because of her union activities or protected activi-
ties.
(b) Threatening Gervitz with discharge because of her union
activities.
(c) Discriminatorily issuing warning notices to Gervitz and
Jagielo because of their union or protected concerted activities.
(d) Unlawfully ordering Jagielo to work a double shift be-
cause of his union activities.
(e) Unlawfully failing and refusing to grant Gervitz and
Jagielo a Christmas bonus in December 2001, because of their
union activity.
(f) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
39 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.
PROPERTY MARKETS GROUP 213
(a) Make Nadya Gervitz and Kazimierz Jagielo whole for
any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of
the unlawful discrimination against them in the manner set
forth in the remedy section of this decision, including the
Christmas bonuses not granted to them.
(b) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from
its files any reference to the unlawful disciplinary warnings to
Nadya Gervitz and Kazamierz Jagielo and within 3 days there-
after, notify them in writing that this has been done and that the
warnings will not be used against them in any way.40
(c) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such addi-
tional time as the Regional Director may allow for good cause
shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the Board
or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment re-
cords, timecards, personnel records, and all other records, in-
cluding an electronic copy of such records if stored in elec-
tronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at all its
facilities in New York City, New York, copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”41 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 2, after being
signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent 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 since January
8, 2002.
(e) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director for Region 2 a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to
the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.

40 While Gervitz required a Russian interpreter while testifying and
Jagielo a Polish interpreter, this was because of the intricacies of direct
and cross-examination. However, both acknowledged an understanding
of some English.
41 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of the United States court
of appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals 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

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice.

FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist any union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.

WE WILL NOT refuse to allow employees to cover for absent
employees because of their union membership and activities on
behalf of the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge because
of their membership in and support for the Union.
WE WILL NOT issue our employees warning letters because of
their union membership and support.
WE WILL NOT compel our employees to work double shifts in
retaliation for their union activities and support.
WE WILL NOT deny employees Christmas bonuses because of
their union membership and activities in support of the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce you in the exercise of rights guaranteed to you
by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL make Nadya Gervitz and Kazimierz Jagielo whole
for any loss of earnings and other benefits with interest suffered
as a result of the discrimination against them less interim earn-
ings.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from our files any reference to the unlawful disciplinary warn-
ings to Nadya Gervitz and Kazimierz Jagielo and, WE WILL,
within 3 days thereafter, notify them in writing that this has
been done and that the warnings will not be used against them
in any way.

PROPERTY MARKET GROUP, INC.