Spartech Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 29, 2005

344 N.L.R.B. 576 (N.L.R.B. 2005)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
344 NLRB No. 72
576
Spartech Corporation and Sheet Metal Workers In-
ternational Association, Local Union No. 170,
AFL–CIO. Cases 21–CA–36049, 21–CA–36056,
21–CA–36148, 21–CA–36274, and 21–CA–36303
April 29, 2005
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND SCHAUMBER
On January 18, 2005, Administrative Law Judge Ge-
rald A. Wacknov issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The
General Counsel filed a cross-exception, a supporting
brief, and an answering brief, and the Respondent filed a
reply brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has considered
the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, find-
ings,1

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 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 judge’s findings.
Because we adopt the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated
Sec. 8(a)(1) by interrogating employee Mauricio Pena regarding his
union activity, we find it unnecessary to pass on the other interrogation
allegations, because any findings of additional violations would not
affect the remedy.
In the absence of exceptions, we adopt the judge’s dismissal of the
allegations that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(1) by threatening
employees to close the facility and relocate it to Mexico if they selected
the Union as their collective-bargaining representative, and by making
statements indicating the futility of selecting the Union.
Contrary to the judge and his colleagues, Member Schaumber finds
that the General Counsel has not established by a preponderance of the
evidence that the Respondent created the impression of surveillance
when Sales Representative Enrique Zavala told employee Jesus Soria
that Vice President William H. Hiatt Jr. knew who had attended a union
meeting a day or two before their conversation. After setting out this
testimony, the judge without more found that Zavala’s remark created
an impression of surveillance. In doing so, the judge failed to note that
the union meeting had been held in an open park near the Respondent’s
plant and that there was no indication the employees were attempting to
keep the meeting from the Respondent’s attention. Indeed, employee
Soria responded to Zavala’s comment by stating the employees didn’t
care because they were not hiding “this” from anyone. In light of the
openness of the meeting and its proximity to the plant, the General
Counsel has not established that Soria would reasonably assume the
Respondent had been informed of the meeting through surveillance (the
test for an impression of surveillance finding, Schrementi Bros., 179
NLRB 853 (1969)), rather than through legitimate means, and accord-
ingly Member Schaumber would dismiss this complaint allegation.
and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order as
modified.2
We adopt the judge’s finding that the Respondent cre-
ated an impression of surveillance and violated Section
8(a)(1) when its agent, Sales Representative Zavala, told
employee Soria, in the course of statements regarding the
upcoming union election, that the Respondent’s vice
president, Hiatt, knew who had attended a union meeting
held a day or two prior. The test for finding an impres-
sion of surveillance is whether an employee could rea-
sonably assume from an employer’s statement that his
union involvement has been placed under surveillance.
Fred’k Wallace & Son, 331 NLRB 914 (2000). When
the employer indicates that it is closely monitoring the
degree of the union involvement of the employees, an
unlawful impression of surveillance is created. Flexsteel
Industries, 311 NLRB 257 (1993). As the Board ex-
plained in Flexsteel,
[t]he idea behind finding “an impression of surveil-
lance” . . . is that employees should be free to partici-
pate in union organizing campaigns without the fear
that members of management are peering over their
shoulders, taking note of who is involved in union ac-
tivities, and in what particular ways. Id.
Under this standard, Zavala’s remark clearly gave Soria the
impression that the Respondent was endeavoring to keep
track of who attended the union meeting, and thus the re-
mark would reasonably tend to discourage participation in
union activities.
Our dissenting colleague asserts that Zavala’s state-
ments did not create an impression of surveillance be-
cause they referred to employees’ open and well-known
union activities. In support of this view, our colleague
points out that the meeting was held in an open park near
the plant, and that Soria responded to Zavala’s comment
that Vice President Hiatt knew who attended the union
meeting by saying that the employees did not care be-
cause they were not hiding “this” from anyone.
We disagree that these circumstances immunize Za-
vala’s statements. The employees chose to meet in a

2 The General Counsel has cross-excepted to the judge’s failure to
include in his recommended Order a provision that the notice to em-
ployees be posted in both English and Spanish. We find merit in the
exception. The record indicates that a great number of the employees
at the Respondent’s facility are primarily Spanish-speaking. Accord-
ingly, we shall modify the Order to provide that the notice be posted in
both English and Spanish. See Caribe Staple Co., 313 NLRB 877
(1994); Sun World, Inc., 271 NLRB 49 fn. 1 (1984), enfd. 843 F.2d 501
(9th Cir. 1988).
We shall also modify the judge’s recommended Order to conform to
the requirements of Indian Hills Care Center, 321 NLRB 144 (1996),
as modified in Excel Container, 325 NLRB 17 (1997).
SPARTECH CORP. 577
park located away from the Respondent’s premises. That
it was a public park does not mean that those in atten-
dance would expect the Respondent’s agents, much less
an official like Hiatt, to come upon their meeting place.
Furthermore, Soria’s statement to Zavala is not surpris-
ing from someone who has been caught by management
attending a union meeting. One reading of his statement
is that he did not want to give management the satisfac-
tion of knowing that it succeeded in observing activity
that the employees intended to keep out of management’s
view. Another is that, having been confronted, he was
defending his right to engage in the activity. In any
event, we do not find it appropriate to assume merely
from a statement of this sort made in these circumstances
that the employees expected their union meeting to be
open to management observation. Nor does the Board
require evidence that the employees intended their union
involvement to be covert in order to find that the em-
ployer unlawfully created the appearance of surveillance.
Flexsteel, supra.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent, Spartech
Corporation, La Mirada, California, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in
the Order as modified.
Substitute the following for paragraph 1(a):
“(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its La Mirada, California facility copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”7 Copies of the notice, in
both English and Spanish, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 21, after being signed by the
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted
by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the
notices are not altered, defaced or covered by any other
material. 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 Re-
spondent shall duplicate and mail at its own expense,
copies of the notices to all current employees, and former
employees employed by the Respondent at any time
since November 19, 2003.”
Alan L. Wu, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Michael A. Hood, Esq. (Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker
LLP), of Costa Mesa, California, for the Respondent.
Robert Sanchez, Organizer, for the Union.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GERALD A. WACKNOV, Administrative Law Judge. Pursuant
to notice a hearing in this matter was held before me in Los
Angeles, California, on October 18 and 19, 2004. The initial
charge was filed on November 14, 2003, by Sheet Metal Work-
ers International Association, Local Union No 170, AFL–CIO
(the Union). Thereafter, the Union filed additional charges. On
June 30, 2004, the Regional Director for Region 21 of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board (the Board) issued a second order
consolidating cases, amended consolidated complaint and
amended notice of hearing alleging violations by Spartech Cor-
poration (Respondent) of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor
Relations Act (the Act). The Respondent, in its answer to the
complaint, denies that it has violated the Act as alleged.
The parties were afforded a full opportunity to be heard, to
call, examine, and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
relevant evidence. Since the close of the hearing, briefs have
been received from counsel for the General Counsel (the Gen-
eral Counsel) and counsel for the Respondent.
Upon the entire record,1 and based upon my observation of
the witnesses and consideration of the briefs submitted, I make
the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent is a Delaware corporation with a manufac-
turing plant located in La Mirada, California, where it is en-
gaged in the manufacture of thermoplastics. In the course and
conduct of its business operations, the Respondent annually
sells and ships from its La Mirada facility goods valued in ex-
cess of $50,000 directly to points outside the State of Califor-
nia. It is admitted and I find that the Respondent is, and at all
material times has been, an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and I find, that the Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Issues
The principal issues in this proceeding are whether the Re-
spondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by various
statements to employees, including threats of plant closure and
plant relocation in the event they selected the Union as their
collective-bargaining representative.
B. Facts, Analysis, and Conclusions
1. Respondent’s November 10, 2003 speech to
the employees
Following the filing of a representation petition by the Union
an election was scheduled for November 25, 2003. The elec-

1 The General Counsel’s motion to correct the transcript, at p. 6 of
the General Counsel’s brief is granted as follows: Tr. p. 58, L. 18, is
corrected to change “had a” to “and.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD578
tion has been blocked by the charges filed in the instant case.
The complaint alleges that the Respondent has committed cer-
tain 8(a)(1) violations both prior to and after the scheduled
election.
It is alleged in the complaint that on November 10, 2003, the
Respondent’s vice president of western operations, William H.
Hiatt Jr., held various meetings with groups of employees and,
through a Spanish interpreter, threatened employees with clos-
ing the plant and relocating the plant to Mexico in the event the
employees selected the Union as their collective-bargaining
representative, and made statements indicating the futility of
union representation.
Various employees testified that during the course of his 40-
minute speech, Hiatt, who spoke in English, made various
statements through his Spanish interpreter about plant closure,
relocating to Mexico, and the futility of selecting a union to
represent them.
Mario Robledo, a current employee of the Respondent, is a
machine operator and has worked for the Respondent for 21
years. Robledo testified that at the meeting he attended, Hiatt
said that the Company would not accept the Union and that if
there was a strike or if the Union came in he could replace the
workers and also had the option of moving the Company to
Mexico.
Pablo Valdez is a current employee and has worked for the
Respondent for about 5 years. He is a machine operator. Val-
dez testified that Hiatt said if the Union got in, the Company
could move production operations to Mexico.
Mauricio Pena is a former employee. Pena testified Hiatt
said if the Union got in and if the Company did not come to an
agreement with the Union as to the money the Union was ask-
ing from the Company, then the Company could go to Mexico.
Manuel Ramirez is a former employee. Ramirez testified
Hyatt said during his speech that it was too hard to have two
bosses and should this happen the Company could move. He
said it was hard for him to sit down and have a conversation
with the Union. He said that possibly he would not sit down to
negotiate.
It was stipulated that on November 10, 2003, Hiatt read the
same prepared text consisting of 14 pages at each of three meet-
ings to assembled employees. Hiatt testified that he did not
deviate from the text. Ana Arraola, a bookkeeper for the Re-
spondent, translated the speech from English to Spanish for the
employees. Arraola testified that she is fluent in both Spanish
and English and stood next to Hiatt during his speeches. She
was looking at the prepared text while translating what Hiatt
read, and testified that Hiatt stated what was in the printed text.
The portion of the speech that refers to plant closure or reloca-
tion is as follows:
Now let’s look at the second question. If you voted the
union in, would your jobs be more or less secure than
they are now? I’m not a fortune teller. I can’t tell you for
sure what would happen if you voted this union in. But I
think that with a union, your jobs could be less secure than
they ever have been. Why is that?
Let’s take a look at what could happen. Let’s say the
union was elected here and we started negotiations for a
contract. Let’s say, too, that the union made a lot of unrea-
sonable demands on the Company in negotiations. That
isn’t too far fetched, given all the promises I understand
they have been making to you to get your vote. Now, if
they did that two things could happen [sic].
One thing that could happen is that the Company could
just give in to the union’s unreasonable demands. That
might seem great for a minute. But think what would hap-
pen if the Company did that. As we have already pointed
out to you, we already pay wages and benefits that are
equal to or above any of our competitors, union or non-
union. So if we gave in to unreasonable demands, we
would have to find a way to get more money to cover the
increased costs. And there is only one way I know of to do
that—increase our prices. You and I know what would
happen if we did that. Our customers would leave us and
go to any of our competitors who charge less for their
products than we do.
And if we start to lose business because our prices are
too high, we obviously wouldn’t need as many workers as
we have now. That means layoffs. If things got bad
enough, it could mean no jobs at all—Spartech might de-
cide just to consolidate manufacturing at our plant in Mex-
ico, and could decide to close this plant down. So, if we
gave into unreasonable demands, chances are that before
too long, you and I would be standing in the line together
at the unemployment office, collecting our unemployment
checks.2
Of course, talking to you about giving in to unreason-
able union demands is really a lot of guesswork. Because
the fact is the Company could not and would not give into
unreasonable union demands. Our competition just
wouldn’t allow it. So if the union made unreasonable de-
mands the Company couldn’t agree to, then there would
be no contract - and the union would have two choices.
They could come back down from their demands. Or they
could call you out on strike. You see, the only way the un-
ion can try to get the Company to agree on something that
the Company doesn’t believe is in your best interests or
the Company’s is to call you out on a strike.
Then, near the end of the speech, after listing the adverse ef-
fects of a strike on employees, Hiatt states:
Now, I’m not saying that there will be a strike if the
union wins the election. But why take a chance? The un-
ion sure can’t guarantee you that there won’t be one.
Strikes only occur when there are unions around. Re-
member that strikes don’t hurt the union organizers. Their
pay keeps coming in whether yours does or not. And a
strike wouldn’t hurt the Company in the long run—we
would keep operating with permanent replacements. The
big losers in a strike are always the workers and their
families.

2 This paragraph was translated by the official interpreter at the hear-
ing to Manuel Ramirez. Ramirez was then asked if this is what Hiatt
said about the plant being moved. Ramirez stated, “Exactly.”
SPARTECH CORP. 579
So this is why I say that voting for the union could
have a very bad effect on your job security here. On all of
ours.
I credit Hiatt and Arraola and find that Hiatt did not deviate
from the prepared text.
The General Counsel also maintains that even if Hiatt read
the text correctly, nevertheless his interpreter, Arraola, miscon-
strued and/or misinterpreted what Hiatt said, and conveyed a
message to the assembled employees that deviated from the
prepared text. In this regard, the testimony of Manuel Ramirez
is particularly significant. Thus, when the pertinent paragraph
was translated at the hearing, Ramirez, a witness called by the
General Counsel, testified that that this was “exactly” what
Hiatt said. And while the General Counsel suggests that Ar-
raola’s translating abilities may not be as proficient as those of
the certified interpreter, the General Counsel made no attempt
to test Arraola’s translating abilities at the hearing. I find the
employees who testified that Hiatt made clear and unqualified
threats of plant closure or relocation to Mexico or said that the
Company would not accept the Union, simply were not attuned
to the nuances of Hiatt’s remarks and gave attenuated and inac-
curate accounts of those remarks. This is certainly understand-
able given the length of Hiatt’s speech, the volume of informa-
tion presented, and the fact that the employees, unlike the par-
ties to this proceeding, did not have the text of the speech be-
fore them to review in order to discern exactly what was being
communicated. Nevertheless, the statements actually made by
Hiatt, not the employees’ subjective interpretation of those
statements, are determinative of the issues in this proceeding.
Next, the General Counsel maintains that the text itself con-
tains unlawful threats. I do not agree. Hyatt states in his
speech that he doesn’t know what will happen if the Respon-
dent has to bargain with the Union, and gives his opinion that
employees’ jobs could be less secure. First, he explains that if
the Respondent gives in to unreasonable union demands, then it
could become less competitive and lose business; this could
result in layoffs or possible closure of the plant and relocation
of the remaining work to its existing plant in Mexico. But then
Hiatt tells the employees that this scenario is not realistic and
would not happen. Hiatt then explains that since the Respon-
dent would not give in to unreasonable demands, the Union
could either back down from its demands or, in the alternative,
there could be a strike. And in the event of a strike, Hiatt says,
“[A] strike wouldn’t hurt the Company in the long run—we
would keep operating with permanent replacements if there is a
strike.” After detailing the adverse consequences of a strike
upon employees, Hiatt states, “Now, I’m not saying that there
will be a strike if the union wins the election. But why take a
chance?”
In the final analysis, Hiatt makes it clear that even if the Un-
ion gets in, and there is a strike, the plant will keep operating.
Therefore, it seems that the record evidence does not support
the complaint allegations regarding plant closure and reloca-
tion. I do not believe Hiatt’s remarks exceed the bounds of
permissible electioneering, and I shall dismiss the allegations of
the complaint pertaining to the unlawfulness of Hiatt’s Novem-
ber 10, 2003 speech. See Novi American, Inc., 309 NLRB 544
(1992); Tri-Cast, Inc., 274NLRB 377, 378 (1985). Cf. AP
Automotive Systems, 333 NLRB 581 (2001) (inevitability of a
strike, plant closure, and job loss).
2. Other alleged 8(a)(1) violations
The complaint alleges that two individuals, Enrique Zavala,
a sales representative who was requested by Hiatt to talk to the
employees about why they wanted the Union, and Gustavo
Cazenueb, a plant supervisor, committed various 8(a)(1) viola-
tions of the Act during their conversations with employees.
Zavala, during his brief testimony, made it clear that he had a
very limited recollection of any specific conversations with
employees, and emphasized that he simply walked through the
plant and “everybody knew me and everybody would approach
me and we started a conversation.” According to Zavala, such
conversations about the Union were “broad—it was nothing
specific.” Zavala acknowledged that he did report to Hiatt
about his conversations with the employees.
Gustavo Cazenueb at first testified that he was not given any
instructions about talking with the employees. Later in his
testimony, Cazenueb said Hiatt instructed him as follows: “He
said I should not talk or give any advise [sic], to anybody, not
to even mention the union.”3 Cazenueb made it clear that he did
not recall specific conversations. I do not credit Cazenueb.
I do not find that either Zavala or Cazenueb had an accurate
recollection of specific conversations with employees, and their
denials of certain statements they are alleged to have made are
not convincing. Clearly, they spoke to many employees about
the Union, and there is no basis for crediting their general deni-
als and superficial responses over the testimony of employees,
including many current, longtime employees, who appeared to
have a clear and detailed recollection of such conversations.
Mario Robledo testified that Enrique Zavala approached him
at his workstation and said that Hyatt had brought him to the
plant to help him talk to the employees because the workers
were trying to bring in the Union.4 He asked why Robledo
wanted to bring in the Union again.5 Robledo gave his reasons.
Zavala said that the Respondent had many orders to fill and that
if the Union got in and went out on strike the Company would
fill the orders from its Mexico facility. Zavala asked Robledo
to relate that message to his coworkers. Robledo refused, say-
ing that he supported his coworkers, and that Zavala would
have to talk to them himself. I credit the testimony of Robledo
and find that Zavala’s asking Robledo why he wanted to bring
the Union in is violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Arturo Espidia is a current employee and has worked for the
Respondent for 17 years. He is currently a machine operator.

3 However, in Hiatt’s November 10, 2003 speech to employees,
Hiatt states, “Over the next few weeks, I am going to be giving you
some bulletins and talking to you about just why I don’t think a union is
in your best interests. Your supervisors are going to be talking to you,
too, because this is very important for all of us.” (Emphasis added.)
4 It was stipulated that when Enrique Zavala returned to the La
Mirada, California facility in November, 2003, Hiatt instructed him to
talk to the employees and find out what issues were driving the union
campaign.
5 There had been prior unsuccessful attempts to unionize the Re-
spondent’s plant.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD580
His supervisor was Gustavo Cazenueb. Espidia went to Ca-
zenueb office to pick up some work orders. Another employee,
Victor Cuellar, was in the office. Cazenueb asked Espidia if
the employees knew what they were doing. Then, according to
Espidia, Cuellar said that because of the employees who
wanted the Union he was going to lose his job and it was possi-
ble that they were going to close the Company and all the em-
ployees would be left without a job and it was all because of us.
Cazenueb made no reply. I credit the testimony of Espidia and
find the question from Supervisor Cazenueb constituted unlaw-
ful interrogation in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, as it
was obviously a pointed remark about the Union and placed
Espidia in the position of having to express his position about
the Union.
In March 2004, Cazenueb mentioned to Espidia that a ma-
chine operator’s job that had apparently been given to another
employee, Jaime Carballo, should have been given to Espidia.
According to Espidia, Cazenueb said, “You know, that job
should have been yours, you know, but you lost that because
you’re going around with that thing with the union.” While
there is very little record evidence regarding this situation, and
while Espidia did in fact become a machine operator, this re-
mark by Supervisor Cazenueb is violative of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act as it indicated that the Respondent would deny job op-
portunities to Espidia because of his union activity.
Martin Pena, a current employee, has worked for the Re-
spondent for 19 years. He is a machine operator. He was talk-
ing with his assistant or helper, Rafael Zavala, regarding a
work-related matter when Gustavo Cazenueb came up and
asked if he was talking about the Union. Pena said no. A little
while later Cazenueb came back and said that if he continued
talking he was going to move Pena to the other plant or change
his shift. Shortly thereafter, Pena’s helper was moved to an-
other line, and Pena was given a different helper. It is neces-
sary for machine operators and helpers to communicate about
work related matters. It is alleged that this conduct of Ca-
zenueb constitutes unlawful interrogation in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act. The record does not show whether em-
ployees were permitted to discuss non work-related matters
while they were operating machinery. However, as it appears
that Cazeneub was only interested in knowing whether Pena
was discussing the Union with his helper, I agree that this con-
stitutes unlawful interrogation.
One day Cazenueb called Pena into his office. Two other
employees were in the office, and Cazenueb, referring to the
two other employees, said, “[L]ook, look, they do not accept
the union. They listen, they watch TV, and they listen to the
radio and they have overtime privileges.” Cazenueb went on to
say that Pena would have “to produce more work for accepting
the union.” Pena replied that Cazenueb was not fair or equal
with all the employees. Cazenueb said he knew that, but he
was the supervisor. I credit the testimony of Pena and find that
Cazenueb’s remarks violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Thus,
Cazenueb made it clear that employees who did not support the
Union would be given more favorable treatment.
Jesus Soria, a current employee, has worked for the Respon-
dent for 16 years. He is a machine operator. Soria testified that
Enrique Zavala came to his workstation about 7 or 10 days
before the scheduled election and asked why the employees did
not get together and first go to Hiatt with their problems before
seeking a union. Soria replied that Hiatt was a busy man and
did not have time for their problems, and that the election was
too close and it was too late to go to Hiatt. Zavala said, accord-
ing to Soria, that the Company was very strong and it was not
convenient for us to get into trouble with unions. He also said
that in very difficult circumstances, if the Union came in and
there was no agreement, the company could close for 1 year
with no problem, and the employees would be without any
income. And the Company had the production power so it
could transfer orders from the La Mirada plant to another loca-
tion. He said that Hiatt had brought him over from Mexico to
speak to the employees and learn what their problems were.
Zavala also told him that Hiatt knew who had attended a meet-
ing with the Union that had taken place a day or two before.
Soria responded that the employees didn’t care because they
were not hiding this from anyone, and that Zavala would quite
possibly be invited to come to the next meeting. The only al-
leged violation emanating from this conversation is the state-
ment by Zavala that Hiatt was aware of the identity of employ-
ees who had attended a recent union meeting. I credit Soria,
and find that by this remark Zavala created the impression of
that the Respondent was engaging in surveillance of employ-
ees’ union activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Soria also testified that he happened to be in Gustavo Ca-
zenueb’s office when Cazenueb asked him, “[W]hy do you
guys want a union?” Soria said he did not want to talk to him
about the Union and left his office. I credit Soria and find that
this conduct of Cazenueb constitutes unlawful interrogation in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Soria testified that Cazenueb was talking to a group of three
or four employees when Soria walked by. He overheard Ca-
zenueb mention something about the possible closure of the
company and moving it somewhere else. Soria laughed, and
said he could not believe the Company would move as it had
just invested a lot of money in electric generators. Cazenueb
said the Company is too strong, they don’t care, and it’s not an
inconvenience for them to move the Company from one place
to another. I shall dismiss this allegation of the complaint as it
is not clear what Cazenueb or the other employees had said
before Soria happened to walk by and overhear their conversa-
tion.
Manuel Ramirez testified that Zavala started a conversation
with him at his machine and said Hiatt was worried because of
what the employees were doing about the Union and wanted
the employees give him their comments because Hiatt wanted
to have it more clear in his mind why we were wanting
changes. Zavala said that if the Union came in little by little,
that they were going to dismantle the Company and it would
move and “people that did not have a good Social Security
Number—they were asking for a good Social Security Num-
ber—they would be fired.” The only alleged violation from this
conversation is the threat to discharge workers who did not
have valid social security numbers if the Union got in. I credit
the testimony of Ramirez and find that by such conduct the
Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Corru-
gated Partitions West, 275 NLRB 894, 898 (1985).
SPARTECH CORP. 581
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3.The Respondent has violated and is violating Section
8(a)(1) of the Act as found herein.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has violated and is violat-
ing Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I recommend that it be required
to cease and desist there from and from in any other like or
related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the
Act. I shall also recommend the posting of an appropriate no-
tice, attached as “Appendix.”
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended6
ORDER
The Respondent, Spartech Corporation, La Mirada, Califor-
nia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Interrogating employees regarding their union activity.
(b) Advising employees that they would be denied work op-
portunities if they supported the Union.
(c) Suggesting that employees who did not support the Union
would be given more favorable treatment.
(d) Telling employees that the Respondent knows who at-
tended union meetings.
(e) Threatening to discharge employees who did not have
valid social security numbers.
(f) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the purposes of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its La
Mirada, California facility copies of the attached notice marked
“Appendix.”7 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the

6 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.
7 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of the United States court
of appeals, the wording in the notice reading, “Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board,” shall read, “Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing and Order of
the National Labor Relations Board.”
Regional Director for Region 21, after being signed by the Re-
spondent’s representative, shall be posted immediately upon
receipt thereof, and shall remain posted by Respondent for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(b) Within 21 days after service by the Regional Office, file
with the Regional Director for Region 21 a sworn certification
of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
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 a 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 question employees about their union activity
on behalf of Sheet Metal Workers International Association,
Local Union No. 170, AFL–CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion.
WE WILL NOT tell employees that they will be denied work
opportunities if they support the Union.
WE WILL NOT tell employees that we will give more favor-
able treatment to employees who do not support the Union.
WE WILL NOT tell employees that we are aware of the em-
ployees who attend union meetings.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge employees who do not
have valid social security numbers.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the foregoing
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
SPARTECH CORPORATION