Studio S.J.T., Ltd.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 23, 1985

277 N.L.R.B. 1189 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

STUDIO S.J.T.
Studio S.J.T., Limited and, Virginia Marie Fast
Studio S.J,T., Limited and United Food & Commer-
cial Workers Union, Local 839, AFL-CIO.
Cases 32-CA-5500 and-32-CA-5521
23 December 1985
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
DENNIS AND BABSON
On 20 July 1984 Administrative Law Judge
James M. Kennedy issued the attached decision.
The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting
brief„' and the General Counsel filed cross-excep-
tions and briefs in support of its cross-exceptions
and in response to the Respondent's exceptions.1
The National Labor Relations Board has dellegat-'
ed its authority in this proceeding , to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's- rulings, findings, and
conclusions, as amplified below, and to adopt the
recommended Order.2
We affirm the judge's conclusion that the Re-
spondent's unlawful conduct warrants a bargaining
order under NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S.
575 (1969), for the following reasons.s
i The General Counsel has moved to strike the Respondent's submis-
sion on the grounds that it does not constitute exceptions within the
meaning of Sec 102.46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations We find
that the Respondent's exceptions and brief together sufficiently designate
the Respondent's points of disagreement with the judge's decision even
though not fully in compliance with the literal requirements of Sea
102.46 B. T. Mancini Co., 269 NLRB 869 (1984) Accordingly, the Gen-
eral Counsel's motion is denied
z Member Dennis, dissenting, would order George Phillips be reinstat-
ed because he did not engage in "misconduct so flagrant as to render
[him] unfit fdr further service," The Mandarin, 228 NLRB 930, 932
(1977). She agrees with the General Counsel that the judge's reliance on
Indian Head Lubricants, 261 NLRB 12 (1982), is misplaced because Phil-
lips did not solicit a bribe for his services as did the employee in Indian
Head -
Member Dennis would also order reinstatement for Virginia Fast In
cases of this kind , it is appropriate to "consider the severity of the mis-
conduct engaged in by both parties." Hillside Ave. Pharmacy, 265 NLRB
1613 (1982). While Member Dennis does not condone Fast's misconduct,
it was limited to one isolated incident and is far outweighed by the Re-
spondent's egregious unfair labor practices against her , including two un-
lawful discharges, repeated harassment , threats of property damage and
bodily harm, and actual physical abuse
a Member Dennis agrees that a bargaining order is appropriate based
on the analysis set forth in her concurring opinion in Regency Manor
Nursing Home, 275 NLRB 1261 (1985).
Briefly , the Respondent committed numerous "hallmark" violations, in-
cluding threats of plant closure , the grant of significant benefits, the dis-
charge and constructive discharge of employee Fast, and the layoffs of
employees Spencer, Phillips, Langdon, and Islas. In the small office and
production units of two and seven em ployees, respectively, there can be
no doubt that the Respondent 's highly coercive, unfair labor practices
were brought to everyone 's attention . Evidence of significant mitigating
circumstances is lacking . Accordingly , Member Dennis agrees that a bar-
gaining order should issue
1189
As found by the judge, the Respondent's two
owners and managing operators here engaged in 26
separate 8(a)(1) violations in addition to numerous
discriminatory discharges and layoffs, For example,
they told the assembled employees that they knew
about the union organizing campaign, characterized
it as anticompany sabotage, and created the impres-
sion that such employee activities were under man-
agement surveillance. They also announced im-
proved wages and benefits at this meeting to dis-
courage employee union activities and, threatened
to shut down the plant if the Union became the
employees' bargaining representative. Thereafter,
these officials engaged in widespread coercive in-
terrogation of employees concerning their own and
others' sentiments, and deputized an employee to
engage in abuse, harassment, and intimidation of
the two leading union adherents and to obtain rev-
ocations of union authorizations from a majority of
the unit employees. The owners made it generally
known to the employees that union activists would
be discharged for engaging in such activity and
meted out ; physical abuse, threats of bodily harm,
and discharge to one of'the leading employee orga-
nizers, and false personnel evaluations, elimination
of supplementary contract earnings , and a discrimi-
natory layoff to the other. Ultimately the Respond-
ent terminated all its office employees and about
half of its production staff in order to get rid of the
Union.
Such widespread, repetitive, and blatant viola-
tions by top management officials demonstrate the
seriousness of the Respondent's overall strategy
and commitment to eliminate the Union by any
means. The Respondent' s willingness to engage, in `
extreme misconduct to thwart employee support
for the Union is revealed by its physical abuse and
threats of bodily harm against the most prominent
union proponent. We find that such extreme and
continuing violations by their nature have a linger-
ing impact on the employees, are not fully dissipat-
ed by conventional remedies,,and make highly un-
likely the possibility of conducting a fair election.
We therefore conclude that the signed authoriza-
tions by a majority of the employees constitute a
more reliable indicator than an, election of their
representation desires. Accordingly, we agree with
the judge that a bargaining order, is appropriate in
these circumstances.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Studio
S.J.T., Limited, Castroville, California, its officers,
277 NLRB No. 126
1190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth - the recommended Order.
Daniel R Altemus, Jr., for the General Counsel._
Allan -P.- Murphy, Esq. (Murphy, Thompson & Gunter),
Monterey, California; for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES M. KENNEDY, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was tried before me at Monterey, California, on 6
days in November and December 1983, pursuant to a
consolidated complaint issued by' the Regional Director
of the National Labor Relations Board for Region 32 on
August 10, 1983.1 The consolidated complaint is based
on charges filed,by Virginia Marie Fast, an individual
(Fast) on May 11, and by United Food & Commercial
Workers Union, Local 839, AFL-CIO (the Union) on
May 16, later amended on July 13. The consolidated
complaint alleges that Studio S.J.T., Limited (Respond-
ent) has engaged in certain violations of Section 8(a)(1),
(3), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act (the
Act).
Issues
Whether or'riot Respondent reacted to a union orga-
nizing drive by committing some 26 separate acts alleged
to be violations of Section 8(a)(1) and whether it violated
Section 8(a)(3) in three instances : (1) by discharging, em-
ployee Fast, improperly reinstating her and/or thereafter
constructively, discharging her; (2) by giving employee
Barbara Langdon a negative job performance evaluation
and reducing her wages; and (3) by laying off at least
four employees on June 28 because of their union activi-
ties. Alleging that the Union had obtained majority status
in, an appropriate unit, the General Counsel asserts' that
the case also requires a bargaining order as a remedy,
contending that a., fair, representation election cannot be
conducted.
All parties were given full opportunity to participate,
to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-ex-
amine witnesses , to argue orally, and to file briefs. Briefs,
Which have been carefully considered, were filed on
behalf of the Gene'ralCounsel and Respondent.
On -the entire record of the case, and from my obser-
vation of=the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the
following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS
Respondent admits and I find that it is an Arizona cor-
poration with an office and place of business in Castro-
ville, California, where it is engaged in the manufacture
and sale of pottery. It further admits that during the 12
months preceding the complaint it has sold and shipped
goods and services valued in excess of $50,000 directly
to customers located outside California. Accordingly, it
admits, and I find, that it is and has been at all material
times `an employer engaged
_
in - commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2),- (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
At the hearing Respondent admitted , and I find, the
Union to have been at all material times a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and Participants
As noted, Respondent is a manufacturer of pottery. In
addition it operates or, has operated approximately four
gift shops. These were located in San Francisco, Carmel,
and Monterey, California,' and Tempe, Arizona. The San
Francisco and Tempe stores were closed in 1983 a few
months before the hearing opened. -
It is Respondent's factory operations which are under
scrutiny here. The Castroville facility is small, consisting
of an 'office and a studio. It is housed in adjacent build-
ings which also house a small electronics shop and ap-
parently the residences of the electronics shop, owner
and at least one other individual. The space leased to Re-
spondent consists of an office used as the corporate head-
quarters and the studio or factory in which the pottery
ware is thrown, designed (scribed), stained, sealed, and
kiln fired. A portion of the facility has been set aside as
the shipping area.
Respondent's two stockholders are Shirley Tasse and
Carma Jenkins. Until sometime in 198,3; Jenkins was,the
president and Tasse was the -secretary-treasurer. Re-
spondent contends that Jenkins remained president only
until April 15 when Tasse replaced Jenkins as president
and the secretaryship was given to an attorney. At that
point, it says, Jenkins no longer held any corporate
office. The General Counsel asserts that Jenkins re-
mained president until the corporate meeting of May 12.
In any event, it is undisputed that Tasse always acted as
the general manager of the business no matter what title
she held and that Jenkins has always served as the-"artist
in residence" in charge of the artistic design on each
piece" produced by the studio. Respondent has stipulated
that Jenkins was at all times its agent within the meaning
of Section 2(13) of the Act; there is some dispute with
respect to her being a supervisor as defined by Section
2(11).2
, B. Majority Status
Although in late 1982 there had been a half-hearted in-
quiry into union representation, the organizing drive in
question here began in April 1983. The first significant
'meeting was at Fast's home in Pacific Grove. It was at-
tended by employees Cindy McLaughlin, Barbara Lang-
don, and Jackie Gates, as well as ex-employee Nancy
Stepina. This resulted in a meeting between Gates, Fast,
and Langdon and a union- representative, Peary Pearson,
on April 26. At that meeting those three signed authori -
zation cards and Pearson gave,additional cards to' Lang-
All, dates, herein refer to 1983 unless otherwise indicated The dispute need not be resolved as `her agency status is clear
STUDIO S.J.T.
don to solicit the remaining employees. At noon on
April 28, the employees met at the residence of
McLaughlin and Stepina, located directly across the
street from the factory. All the other employees, except
Deanna Frei who had not been invited, signed cards.
Only two of the signers were not factory personnel.
These were Fast, the office secretary/bookkeeper and Al
Spencer, a regular part-time employee who served as a
statistician performing cost analysis and inventory con-
trol duties.
Thus, as of noon on April 28, a majority of Respond-
ent's factory workers and all of its business office person-
nel had authorized the Union to represent them for the
purpose of collective bargaining.
C. The Appropriate Unit(s)
At the hearing the General Counsel amended para-
graph 12 of the complaint to describe what she believed
to be a unit appropriate for collective bargaining. As
amended, the appropriate unit is alleged to be "All full-
time and part-time employees of Studio S.J.T. Limited,
employed at its facility at 11050 Preston Street, Castro-
ville, California , excluding guards and supervisors, as de-
fined in the Act." Although Respondent had no proce-
dural objections to the amendment , it continued its earli-
er denial that the unit was appropriate as defined by Sec-
tion 9(b) of the Act.
In this respect , I find myself in agreement with Re-
spondent and observe that the unit as described by the
General Counsel would include office clerical employees
in a production unit. Such inclusions have historically
been considered inappropriate as office clericals and pro-
duction workers do not generally have a community of
interest .3 In this respect , the burden was on the General
Counsel to demonstrate the appropriateness of the inclu-
sion of the office clerical employee (s). She did not do so
here. In this particular instance there are two individuals
who can properly be characterized as office workers.
The first is , of course , Fast , the secretary/bookkeeper.
The second is Al Spencer , the regular part-time statisti-
cian and inventory control person. He performed pro-
ductivity studies as well. As he worked in the office with
Fast and the company managers and engaged in no pro-
duction whatsoever , I find his interests to be closer to
office work then production work. Accordingly, I find
that there are two appropriate units, as follows:
Unit 1: All full-time and part-time production and
maintenance employees of Respondent employed at
its Castroville , California facility excluding office
clericals, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
Unit 2: All business office employees employed by
Respondent at its Castroville, California facility ex-
cluding production and maintenance employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
3 In general see Minneapolis-Moline Co, 85 NLRB 597, 598 (1949),
Westinghouse Electric Corp, 89 NLRB 8, 28 (1950), General Electric Co,
107 NLRB 70, 72 (1953)
1191
The complaint alleges and the answer admits that on
May 2 the Union by letter requested Respondent to rec-
ognize it as the exclusive collective -bargaining represent-
ative of the employees in the unit. The answer denies the
further allegation that Respondent has failed and refused
to recognize the Union, but it is clear from the facts as
developed that such is the case. Respondent has at all
times refused to deal in any way with the Union, includ-
ing meeting with Fast in mid-May in the presence of
Union Representative Peary Pearson.
D. Respondent's Staff Meeting of April 28
As will be seen, the,Union obtained majority status as
of noon on April 28, and Respondent reacted quickly to
the knowledge that its employees had engaged in union
organizing activities.
General Manager Shirley Tasse had originally sched-
uled a staff meeting for April 26. That meeting had been
rescheduled for the afternoon of April 28. The original
agenda, as posted, listed four topics to be discussed'
fringe benefits, profit and loss statement, future projects,
and productivity.
Tasse immediately deviated from that agenda when
she began the meeting by announcing that she had, the
day before, received an anonymous telephone call. Ac-
cording to her, the anonymous caller4 had advised that
her employees were involved in a dirty and vicious cam-
paign against the Company. She said the caller claimed
the employees had been engaged in night-time meetings
and were plotting to shut the Company down. She testi-
fied the caller did not mention that the employees were
engaged in union activity and she further testified she
did not tell the employees at the meeting that the caller
had so told her. Nonetheless, employees Barbara Lang-
don, Al Spencer, George Phillips, and Sonya Islas, all
recall her referring to the union organizing as she dis-
cussed the anonymous call. It is also true that some other
employees who attended the meeting did not testify to
that fact; neither did they deny it.
After discussing the anonymous call, Tasse continued
to deviate from the agenda by presenting the employees
with a handwritten document containing a new salary
and wage grade system. No such system had been in ex-
istence before even though there had been complaints
earlier with respect to the manner in which Respondent
had settled on wage rates and promotions. Tasse advised
the employees that the system was being implemented
immediately.5 She also announced an employee appraisal
system. The appraisal forms had been printed in Novem-
ber or December 1982, but had not yet been utilized.
Tasse then went into at least some of the items on the
agenda. It seems clear that Tasse had brought some fi-
nancial records, including an annual statement and profit-
and-loss sheets to the meeting and offered employees the
4 Tasse testified that she later learned the caller was Jackie Gates' ex-
husband He did not testify
5 Designer Deanna Frei's testimony that she had taken this material to
a typist 2 weeks earlier is disbelieved It is inconsistent with the testimo-
ny of other employees Moreover, the material would have been given to
Fast, the office secretary, for typing Also Frei has displayed a personal
bias against Fast and a second bias in favor of Respondent
1192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
opportunity to review them . She also talked about some
"future projects" which were being contemplated. In
particular she pointed to a new kiln which was being
constructed in the yard . Productivity does not appear to
have been discussed in any great detail . There is some
dispute with respect to whether or not fringe benefits
were discussed and that will be dealt with below. It is
clear that Tasse permitted employees the opportunity to
comment and ask questions . There is no dispute that em-
ployee George Phillips, a relatively new employee,
dominated the meeting . He viewed it as an opportunity
to air grievances and he complained about wages, vaca-
tions, and the absence of a sick leave policy . He also
complained about the lack of a work clothing allowance.
Phillips claimed he had been one of the individuals
who had originally suggested unionization shortly after
he was hired on April 11. He was one of the employees
who signed a union card at noon on April 28. He says
that during the staff meeting , when he realized he was
the only one with the courage to complain about work-
ing conditions , he felt "betrayed" by the others and as a
result decided to switch allegiances.6
Like some of the other employees, Phillips lived near
the Studio in Castroville . Immediately after the meeting
ended he went home only to return a few minutes later.
When he returned, driven by his sense of betrayal, he
told Tasse she had "rattlesnakes in her den," and that a
union was being formed and the individuals who were
involved were Fast, Barbara Langdon, and Jackie Gates.
He told Tasse that he had signed a union card but now
believed the employees were acting improperly and
wished to change sides and help Tasse instead . He said
he offered to help her "set the employees straight." He
says she replied , "Do it."
Tasse agrees that Phillips informed her of the unioniza-
tion of the employees at that time but denies that she au-
thorized him to take any action.
Langdon of having falsely denounced McLaughlin to
Tasse as a thief in an earlier incident . Phillips agrees he
was generally abusive to Langdon and he continued his
verbal abuse of her for the rest of the day and for the
rest of her employment . Even Jenkins agrees that Phil-
lips regularly "massacred" Langdon thereafter.
Later that morning, Phillips approached Tasse and
Jenkins and had what he described as a private conversa-
tion with them . During that conversation , he says Tasse
told him she intended to fire Fast and deal with the
other organizers at a later time . He says he asked if he
could use the telephone to call Union Official Pearson.
Having obtained permission he called Pearson in their
presence . Phillips says he cursed and yelled at Pearson
demanding the return of the authorization cards. He re-
ports Pearson told him the Union could return them only
on the written request of each card signer . He passed
that information along to Tasse and Jenkins who told
him, "Good job, George ." He then told Tasse that he in-
tended to continue his antiunion activities and would
draft a pattern letter requesting their return.
As promised he drafted revocation letters, got them
signed by various employees , and was later given permis-
sion to deliver them to the union hall in Salinas during
work . He says he solicited the revocation letters by tell-
ing each employee that the Union was "terrible." He
succeeded in persuading nearly every employee except
Langdon to revoke their cards. McLaughlin had already
asked Langdon to return her card and Langdon had
complied.
Phillips testified Tasse also told him that her attorneys
had said she could not bother anybody, that she and Jen-
kins had to keep their hands off, but Phillips as an em-
ployee could harass employees because it would then be
"employee versus employee ." Phillips agreed to harass
the employees over the Union.
E. April 29
Shortly before work on April 29 several employees in-
cluding Langdon and McLaughlin, together with
McLaughlin 's roommate , Stepina, had gathered in front
of the McLaughlin/Stepina residence. When Phillips ar-
rived and saw Langdon , he began to scream at her
saying he had been "suckered" and loudly told Langdon
he had told the owners about the union activity and ev-
erything that was going on at the factory regarding it.
McLaughlin testified in addition that Phillips accused
5 Phillips' sense of betrayal is a puzzle, for the Union was about to step
in and seek representation on such matters . The others knew it and were
only being cautious by remaining silent . He, however , was not Phillips is
a volatile individual subject to quick mood changes and , I believe, an ex-
aggerted sense of self-importance . While I do not discredit him in gener-
al, much of his testimony should be viewed carefully For example, he
testified that he "built" the new kiln No doubt he performed some
manual labor on it , but he did not really know what he was doing. The
electronics shop owner Frank Wygachiewicz , a trained safety engineer,
became alarmed at Phillips' ineptitude and arranged for a local furnace
company owner to draft a proper design and to do most of the work.
The furnace company owner owed a debt to Wygachiewicz and paid it
by providing the design and his labor ; Tasse then paid Wygachiewicz.
Clearly Phillips' contribution was less than he claimed He may have
started the kiln, but he could not finish it properly.
F. The Discharge of Fast
As previously noted, Fast had earlier held a union
meeting in her home . On April 28, Phillips informed
Tasse that Fast was one of the three principal union or-
ganizers . On April 29, the very next morning , Tasse dis-
charged Fast when she arrived late for work.
Al Spencer, who worked in the office , remembers a
conversation in the morning shortly after Fast was fired.
He heard Tasse and Jenkins discussing Fast's discharge
saying they believed her to be the one who was starting
the union organizing . He remembers them saying some-
thing about Langdon and Jackie Gates as still being
"very much involved with the union ." See similar testi-
mony from Langdon, section I, infra.
About 2 days later, Spencer says , Jenkins made an-
other statement about Langdon and Gates. He says Jen-
kins said something to the effect that Fast had left but
Langdon and Gates were still believed to be involved
heavily in union activities and would probably take over
more or less where Fast had left off. He said that in
some fashion , apparently no longer clear to him, they
"indicated" they intended to get rid of both Langdon
and Gates.
STUDIO S.J.T.
Fast had been hired on November 30, 1982, as, a
secretary/bookkeeper . She worked 35 hours per week.
Her duties included handling accounts payable/-
receivable, typing correspondence, answering the tele-
phone, logging checks, making bank deposits , and han-
dling the payroll records , including the timecards and
the transmittals to the payroll service.
'Tasse asserts that Fast was fired only after a series of
counseling sessions failed to improve Fast's performance.
She says she made the decision to discharge Fast ap-
proximately a week before actually doing so and that her
decision was based on four principal factors ; ( 1) poor job
performance , (2) tardiness , (3) attitude, and (4) the dis-
semination of proprietary information. In addition, Tasse
asserts that Fast misinformed her with respect to the
amount of experience that she had had at the time of her
hire. According to Tasse, it became apparent early on
that Fast did not know as much about bookkeeping as
Tasse had been led to believe . Finally, Respondent points
to evidence that Fast had misrepresented herself on her
application form . In referring to her previous employer,
Donald Reifsteck Insurance Agency, Fast had said she
bad left that job in order to obtain "more responsible
employment," implying that her departure was volun-
tary. Reifsteck testified , however, that he had fired her
because of her unwillingness to learn the job and because
she had taken unwarranted detours while absent from the
office to make bank deposits.
Indeed, Fast 's failure to follow Tasse 's directions with
respect to Respondent 's bank deposits are cited by Tasse
as one of the factors leading to her discharge . It appears
that Respondent was constantly having cash-flow difficul-
ties. On occasion Tasse had written checks at times when
the account did not have enough money to cover them
on the day they were written . Subsequent deposits
needed to be made hastily and it was Fast's duty to go to
the bank before 3' p.m. to do so. There were times when
she did not meet that deadline. On another occasion Fast
forgot to transfer money ' from the. general account to the
payroll account to cover payroll checks which had been
issued
With respect to the payroll matter, Tasse complained
that Fast regularly ' forgot to replace old timecards with
new ones. As for the attendance problems, they did not
begin until January 1983. Although there is some dispute
about whether it was discussed at the time of fast's hire,
in January Fast began teaching an 8 a.m, class at the
community college in Monterey. Since her -class did not
end until 9 a.m., she was unable to, meet the 9 a.m. start-
ing time at Respondent's facility located some 16 miles
away. ' Both Tasse and Fast agreed , however, that Fast
was permitted , on those days when she taught , to come
to work as soon as she could . In any event , Fast's job
was scheduled for' 35 hours a week , and there is no con-
tention that she did not work her full 35 hours.
Regarding Respondent 's assertion that Fast was "dis-
seminating proprietary information " Tasse and Jenkins
point, to an incident on April 28 while the employees'
noontime card-signing was occurring. Tasse claims that
Fast had left her purse under her desk and that both she
and Jenkins noticed some computer printout paper pro-
truding from it. Their stones are somewhat inconsistent.
1193
Tasse says she knew it was payroll data by looking, at it
but she that did not remove the document to review it.
Jenkins says she removed the document and -they both
looked at it. In any event, they say they concluded Fast
had removed personnel data from the office . They were
also unable to find the piecework contract file containing
the pay records of their principal pot thrower, David
Becher.7 That particular file was located on the follow-
ing day . There is no evidence connecting Fast to its dis-
appearance . In addition , Tasse believed , on the basis of
information obtained during the anonymous telephone
call , that someone was misusing company records during
the organizing drive.8
Fast denies the purse in question was hers. She said
she had her purse with her during the luncheon meeting
andrecalls drawing a pen from it in order to assist em-
ployees to sign the union authorization cards. She de-
scribed an entirely different sort of purse, and says 'she'
has never owned a-purse such as that described by Jen-
kins and Tasse.9
Even assuming the purse was Fast 's and that it did
contain payroll information , there ' are two possible and
perfectly innocent reasons for the document to have
been there. On April 26, 2 days before, Fast and, two
others, Frei and Al Spencer , had been sent to Santa Cruz
to attend a training session conducted by, Respondent's
new payroll service. Fast admits taking some payroll
data with her for the training purpose . Frei agrees.
Second, Fast says, Respondent had no copy machine and
she was occasionally obligated to make copies of compa-
ny documents and had to -.remove them from the office
for that purpose. She utilized copy machines at various
locations , including places near her home , taking docu-
ments overnight for that purpose.
It is fair to say that Fast had, a quite different perspec-
tive on her job performance and her value to the Com-
pany than did Tasse. In early April Fast had asked Tasse
for a raise and Tasse had put- her off saying she needed
time to consider . Fast wished to change the nature of her
job and to become, in her words, a "liaison " between
management and the production workers. Tasse was not
particularly receptive to the idea. However, it was not
discussed in great detail until April 21 when Fast met
' Becher did not actually work at the factory, but at his own work-
shop For most of the time he was connected to the Company he was
considered to be an independent contractor, after Fast, at Tasse's direc-
tion, consulted with state officials about Becher 's status, he was placed on
the payroll, although his gross pay was calculated as before , on a piece
rate.
s Tasse also cites a report made by Deanna Frei, that Fast had told the
employees at the April 21 evening meeting at her residence that she had
access to the payroll documents and that she knew Tasse had paid a
$10,000 note early, so she knew Respondent had the money to make
wage increases At one point in her testimony Tasse said that during the
April 21 discussion with Fast, infra, regarding her request for a pay raise,
she cited Fast's dissemination of proprietary document's as one of the rea-
sons for denying Fast's request for a raise, Tasse's testimony is false for
not until Frei supposedly reported the above incident were there "even
grounds for suspicion . But the relied-on incident did not occur until after
the April 21 pay raise meeting.
9 Also present at the time of the purse incident, was Al Spencer Spen-
cer, however, could not corroborate Tasse and Jenkins He remembers
them- making statements to the effect that they believed the purse was
Fast's, but he did not look at the material protruding from it.
1194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with Tasse and Jenkins . At that time Tasse rejected the
concept and advised Fast that she did not believe Fast's
performance warranted a wage increase , citing several
shortcomings as well as the matter discussed in footnote
8, supra . Fast was more than disappointed ; she became
angry and upset . Respondent observes that it was the
same evening that the first serious union organizing
meeting was conducted and that it occurred in Fast's
home . It may well be that the denial of the raise was the
incident which prompted Fast to seek union assistance.
Be that as it may, Fast reacted in an equally angry
manner when discharged on April 29. As she left the
office after being fired she commented on Tasse's dogs
which were kept at the office saying that they "stink"
and that Tasse did too. In addition , she appears to have
muttered epithets and stated that Tasse had better be pre-
pared for "several audits ." At another point she admits
she threatened to report Jenkins to the Social Security
Administration as fraudulently receiving disability bene-
fits. Clearly Fast has a vindictive side even if some of
her threats to go to Federal and state agencies were pro-
tected by law.
Tasse was led to say that she had made the decision to
discharge Fast prior to the evening of April 28, but
could not say exactly when. She opined that it might
have been on April 25. Despite that decision , she none-
theless sent Fast and two other employees on April 26 to
the payroll training session in Santa Cruz on the follow-
ing day . She was vague about when the decision was ac-
tually made.
In addition , Tasse gave the NLRB investigator some
written statements which are inconsistent with her oral
testimony . Without detailing the inconsistencies , suffice it
to say that they dealt principally with the date the deci-
sion was made to discharge Fast and the reasons ad-
vanced for the discharge . Frankly, Tasse's testimony on
these points is so entangled in different stories that it is
difficult to discern what actually transpired. t o
Moreover, Tasse made some written notes with re-
spect to the discharge on either April 28 or 29 listing her
reasons for discharging Fast, including "conflict with
management , disloyal to the office and to me, disseminat-
ing proprietary information" and the crossed-out phrase
"agitation ." Also crossed out was the word, "disorga-
nized" followed by the final reason, "misconduct on the
job." The "disseminating proprietary information" phrase
is written in different colored ink. Whatever can be made
of her notes , it is clear that they have been heavily
edited.
G. Fast's Return
After Fast was discharged she filed the instant unfair
labor practice charge on May 11. On May 13, Tasse
wrote Fast a letter requesting her to return to her former
employment on Tuesday, May 17. The letter stated that
Fast's reemployment would be under the same terms and
conditions that had existed at the time of her termination.
Fast says she attempted to speak to Tasse with Union
Representative Pearson present . According to her, Tasse
10 If one wishes to review some of the inconsistencies, attention is in-
vited to pp. 704-713 of the transcript
refused to deal with Pearson on the advice of a labor re-
lations representative . In any event a conversation did
take place during which Tasse assured Fast that she
could return to the same job and under the same work-
ing conditions . As a result , on May 17, Fast returned to
work.
Fast testified that on her arrival she learned that a
number of changes had been made . Previously , she had
been updating personnel files and had been responsible
for payroll, indeed trained on the new system. These two
duties involved approximately 25 percent of her time,
she said . Both of those duties had been taken from her
and were now being performed by Tasse herself. Also,
due to an office rearrangement , Tasse had set up her
desk so she could directly watch Fast. Furthermore, ac-
cording to Fast, she was never left alone in the office
and was constantly watched by Tasse, Jenkins, or Cindy
McLaughlin who had assumed the duties of foreperson
in the factory. Fast also said she was denied access to the
factory during the first week. She was told she could not
walk through the factory to go to the break area, but
had to go around the building complex involving a walk
of about half a block. When she complained she could
not get to the bottled water cooler located some distance
inside the factory , they moved it so she could reach
inside the door to obtain water . Her breaks and lunches
became standarized and were no longer as flexible as
they had been in the past. She says she sometimes was
followed even when she went outside. She says Tasse
told her she could not talk about nonbusiness matters to
others. Al Spencer corroborates her.
Once, Fast says, during her first week back, when she
and Jenkins were alone in the office, Jenkins said, "I'm
very glad that I caught you alone . I'm going to be doing
it often in the future, and you're not going to have any
witnesses." According to Fast, Jenkins then began curs-
ing her and calling her vile names , saying , "You're going
to be taken care of." According to Fast, Jenkins referred
to friends in the "gay community" who would take care
of her and do damage to Fast's personal property, such
as her automobile . She says the incident lasted for 10 to
20 minutes and ended only when Al Spencer entered the
room.
Fast says that approximately a week later a similar
confrontation occurred again when Jenkins was "baby
sitting" her. She says Jenkins called , "Virginia, take a
look at this ," showing her a piece of paper on which she
had written "You bitch, you're going to be taken care
of" or something similar . Fast says she reported the inci-
dent to Tasse but Jenkins denied it. A few minutes later
Jenkins raked her nails down Fast 's back and snapped
her bra. On two other occasions, Fast says Jenkins told
her "they" would contact Fast's other employer, the
community college, to report that she was a troublemak-
er.
Also during the first week after her return, according
to Fast, she had two confrontations with George Phil-
lips. The first occurred on May 17 when she had gone
back to the break area behind the plant. She says Phillips
began ridiculing her saying that her "great ideas for a
union" had not worked out. She says he heckled her.
STUDIO S J T
Phillips testified that shortly before Fast returned to
work Jenkins told him she had found out Fast was a pro-
fessional union organizer and had done such things else-
where. She said an attorney had told her to rehire Fast
but-that as soon as the union business blew over, they
would fire both Fast and Langdon. A short time thereaf-
ter he says Tasse told him do to Fast what he had been
doing to Langdon. Accordingly, he admits on the first
day Fast returned, he falsely accused her of interfering
with his work.
Nancy Stepma was also present during the first break
area incident. She had returned to work in the first week
of May. She says that shortly before Fast returned, Tasse
had told everyone, including Phillips, _ to leave Fast
alone. On May 17, according to her, she observed Fast
in the break area needle Phillips by calling him a "hot
shot" with reference to the unfinished kiln. She says
Phillips jumped all over Fast and then accused her of
interfering with his work.
Phillips says that on at least one occasion Tasse told
him that any reprimand he received for his conduct
would be "cosmetic." Tasse denies ever telling Phillips
that any reprimand he received for harassment of em-'
ployees would be cosmetic. She states, and there appears
to be no reason to doubt her, that shortly before Fast
was to return, she told all the employees, including Phil-
lips, to leave Fast alone. Whether or not the directive
was a sham will be determined, infra. Indeed, Jenkins
gave Phillips a surplus kiln frame, sometime later. It was,
Phillips says, worth $1000. The "gift" raises the question
of whether it was gratuitous or payment for services ren-
dered.
Fast testified that on either Thursday or Friday of that
same week a similar incident involving Phillips occurred
at the break area. She says he accused her of being
stupid. She reported the matter to Tasse but to her
knowledge nothing was done.
Her last day of work was June 3. On that particular
day Tasse had an appointment with an NLRB investiga-
tor to investigate the charges which Fast had filed. The
appointment was' in the afternoon and Tasse gave Fast
the afternoon off. According to Fast, by that time she
had become short-tempered and exhausted and was
bringing that attitude home; her family, was suffering.
Over the weekend, and apparently after some consulta-
tion with her physician, she decided to quit. According-
ly, she did not: report to work on June 6,; advising Tasse
by telephone that' she had quit.
H. The Testimony of Kenneth Scoville
Kenneth Scoville is the owner of a Wicks `N' Sticks
store in Mesa, Arizona. He testified that his store annual-
ly purchases approximately $6000-$7000 of Respondent's
products. According to him, he regularly communicates
with Respondent by long-distance telephone. He said
that during the', Christmas season of 1982 he came to
know Virginia Fast's voice on the telephone. He said
that sometime in July 1983, although he is not certain of
the exact date, he received a telephone call from a
woman who identified herself as "Virginia from Studio
S.J.T." He says he recognized the voice as the same Vir-
1195
ginia with whom he had communicated during the
Christmas season.
He testified Virginia told him Respondent's employees
were involved in a labor dispute and asked him' to coop-
erate by not placing any orders with Respondent until
the dispute was resolved. Scoville says he explained that
his store had carried the merchandise since he had
bought it, that it was good merchandise which sold well,
and that he saw no reason to discontinue buying it. At
that point, he says, Virginia asked, "Are you aware that
Shirley and Carma are lesbians?" She asked him not to
place orders on that basis. Scoville replied that it made
no difference, that he purchased the merchandise because
of its own merit, not because of the personal lives of the
company owners. He says she then asked him not to tell
anyone from Respondent about the telephone call. None-
theless Scoville reported the incident to Tasse.
The incident is denied in its entirety by Fast. She says
she made no such telephone call.
1. The June Layoff
During May or , early June, employees Gates and Olea
quit and Islas took a medical leave. Nonetheless replace-
ments Weshenfelder , Locatelli, and Stacey Jenkins (Jen-
kins' teenaged daughter) were all hired during that
period . i i In addition , Stepina had returned in the first
week of June. Although earlier in the year Respondent's
factory employees were working under reduced hours, in
June the staff began to work on a nearly 40-hour-per-
week basis.
On June 29 , Tasse announced the layoff of all employ-
ees hired after October 1982. As a result , Langdon, Phil-
lips, Al Spencer, the recently hired employees , and Islas
(still on medical leave) were all laid off. McLaughlin,
Stepina, Denise Spencer, and Frei continued to work as
usual.
Tasse explained that she and Jenkins had attended a
Wicks `N' Sticks sales show in San Diego in early June.
Wicks `N' Sticks is a large chain of gift shops located
throughout the United States. Some of its stores are
company-owned while a large number are owned and
operated by franchisees , such as Scoville . It was the first
time , that Tasse and Jenkins had actually gone to the
convention , although their products had been displayed
there in the past. In fact, Wicks `N ' Sticks stores were
major customers . Tasse testified that, contrary to her ex-
pectations , few orders were placed. She says she per-
ceived that sales were going to fall off dramatically asa
result of the shortage of orders . She concluded that Re-
spondent could not continue to produce pottery at the
projected rate and decided to lay off all the employees
hired after October 1982.
Both the decision to make the layoff and the selection
of the cutoff date raise two separate , but significant ques-
tions. They will be dealt with seriatim.
The Sales Figures
With respect to the decision to reduce personnel, Re-
spondent simply offered Tasse's oral testimony recited
11 Stacey Jenkins only worked for 2 weeks in June
1196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
above. The General Counsel, to counter that testimony,
obtained certain financial records. (These were reduced
to summary form in G.C. Exh. 10.) That exhibit shows
the monthly "total income sales" figure as taken from the
monthly financial statements:
Month Amount
January $ 8,078.21
February 16,377.94
March 25,169.57
April 14,652.91
May 21,531.48
June 14, 534.59
July 30,025.71
August 29,414.61
September 31,078.57
The low January figure is not surprising considering
the fact that it is the month immediately following the
Christmas season, when the bulk of Respondent's prod-
ucts are sold at retail. However, one can see that the
July, August, and September figures are roughly the
same. Considering that the June layoff was based on a
projection'of lower orders, it is clear that Tasse was mis-
taken. Furthermore, there is an odd fluctuation between
March -and June. March was $10,500 greater than April;
May was- $7000 greater than April, but $7000 greater
than June. July, however, was more than twice the
volume of June. It seems likely that the summer produc-
tion, gearing up for the fall gift season would have been
obvious to Tasse in June, despite the fact that the orders
did not materialize at the San Diego show as quickly as
she had hoped.
Barbara Langdon
With respect to the selection of October as the cutoff
date for layoffs , there are two curious features . Not only
did it sever recent -hires, it also severed Langdon, a
senior employee, the only one of the three original union
organizers who remained. Moreover, Langdon had been
a valued employee for some time . She had orginally been
hired , in August 1981 and had worked through March
1982 when she married and moved out of State. She kept
in touch with Tasse and Jenkins and they rehired her in
October 1982 as the foreperson of the shop . In addition
to performing foreperson 's duties she also worked at the
potter's wheel throwing certain pieces and, in addition to
her foreperson 's pay, received pay for the number of
"bags" of thrown pottery she produced. It does appear
that she was not as successful a foreperson as either she
or Respondent would have liked, and she was removed
from those duties in late January . Nonetheless, she was a
skilled pottery craftsman who had no particular prob-
lems with her employment until Phillips reported her as
one of the union organizers on April 28 and became the
subject of a harassment campaign on April 29. As noted
above, Phillips reported a conversation with Tasse
during which Tasse said she had discharged Fast for her
union activity and would discharge the other organizers
(meaning Langdon and Gates ) at a later time . He also
testified to a similar conversation with Jenkins as Fast
was being recalled.
In addition, according to Langdon, some other specific
incidents occurred regarding her. She said that on April
29, shortly after the altercation with Phillips across the
street from the factory, Jenkins asked to speak with her
privately. They went to the front- of the building where
Jenkins told Langdon she was "very upset" about Lang-
don's union activities. She told Langdon that she knew
everything, including the nightly meetings , and wanted
to know why Langdon was involved in the Union be-
cause it would shut the Studio down. Langdon says Jen-
kins told her union dues were very high, and then said
she knew Fast was the initiator of it all, and Fast's job
"was as good as gone." Throughout the rest of the day,
according to Langdon, Jenkins asked Langdon what her
involvement with the Union was and asked Langdon to
tell her what the other employees had to do with it. Jen-
kins denies the conversations occurred.
On May 2, Langdon became the first employee to re-
ceive a performance evaluation. As noted above, the
forms had been printed 6 months earlier but had never
been used until this particular evaluation, although their
use had been announced on April 28. Although Jenkins
was present, Tasse made all the written comments on the
form and orally presented it to Langdon. Conceding that
the quality of Langdon's work and job knowledge were
"very good" Tasse nonetheless made some observations
which, according to Langdon, are unsupported and false.
At one point the analysis states Langdon "continuously
complains creating morale problems." Langdon says 'she
asked Tasse about that comment and Tasse replied that
some employees whom she declined to name had made
the complaints. In addition the evaluation mentioned
Langdon's supposedly "negative attitude" as creating
"morale problems." Tasse stated in the report that Lang-
don needed to improve her speed and tardiness factors
and "not agitate and depress fellow workers .. .
through poor attitude and negative comments." It also
accused her of giving an employee a factory key without
authorization, apparently in April. With respect to the
latter, Langdon said she had given her key to Cindy
McLaughlin who lived across the street in order to
permit McLaughlin to come in early to turn on the kiln.
She says no one had told her that she should not do
so. 12 McLaughlin was - sufficiently trusted to later be
named acting foreperson in May, and later fully acceded
to that position.
With respect to the evaluation's comment relating to
Langdon's alleged agitation and depression of fellow
workers, Langdon said Tasse simply told her they had
had complaints from some employees about her attitude.
It concluded saying a second evaluation would be given
in 3 weeks.
Toward the end of the interview Langdon brought up
the Union saying she had not tried to harm Tasse and
Jenkins by bringing in the Union and had not -tried to
shut them down, but felt that it was for everyone's blene-
18 There are some suggestions that either McLaughlin or Stepina at
one point had been accused of stealing and their key had been taken from
them Nonetheless they were not fired and McLaughlin was given the
responsibility, on occasion, to fire the kiln in the early morning Usually
that lob was performed by Deanna Frei
STUDIO S.J T.
fit. She remembers Tasse telling her she could not dis-
cuss U-N-I-O-N, spelling it out. Jenkins interjected that
Langdon would not be doing any more contract labor,
for she had "screwed herself" because of her union ac-
tivities and since contractor labor was a "gray area" it
would not be done anymore Thereafter, according to
Langdon, she was no longer allowed to claim "by the
bag" pay. Instead, she was paid by the hour.
The second evaluation was conducted on June 9 in
which - Tasse noted some changes. According to her,
Langdon's quantity had fallen from "needing minor im-
provement" to "needing major improvement" but her
ability to work with others-had improved from needing
major improvement to needing only minor improvement.
Punctuality had improved but her effort and initiative
continued to need major improvement. There are ' a
number of comments with respect to Langdon's sup-
posed waste of clay, together with a statement that her
continued waste of clay would be grounds for dismissal.
It seems that certain special clay was being thrown
away. Langdon denies throwing any away. The only dis-
cussion she remembers with respect to clay was when
new foreperson McLaughlin told her she could no
longer take home so-called waste clay.
The reports that Langdon was throwing away unused
clay were made principally by McLaughlin who has a
distinct bias and dislike of Langdon. McLaughlin be-
lieves Langdon falsely accused her and Stepina of steal-
ing, basing her belief on something Phillips had said on
April 29. Thus, McLaughlin's report to Tasse, even if
made, was made by a biased individual, whose bias was
the result of Phillips' harassment of Langdon.
J. Additional Evidence
Al Spencer, the part-time statistician who worked in
the office in close proximity to Tasse and Jenkins, testi-
fied that shortly before the April 28 staff meeting, he had
heard Tasse and Jenkins' discussing a church yard meet-
ing which had occurred ,2 days before. His recollection
was a little vague but he' said he heard them saying they
knew there was a lot of complaining and griping about
working conditions and' he recalled something to the
effect that they remarked the employees were "possibly"
thinking about a union. Jenkins even admits being aware
that employees during this time period were "clustering"
and reported that fact to Tasse. According to Spencer
the union organizing was "'no secret."
Spencer also testified that when he was hired in April,
only a few weeks before the April 28 meeting, he had
asked Tasse whether there were any paid holidays. She
said, "No, the Company, cannot afford them." He also
remembers that at one of the meetings, he believes it was
April 28, but possibly another meeting, Tasse remarked
that before the Union would come in she would close
the factory.
Spencer also remembers Jenkins making several re-
marks about Fast. He says shortly after Respondent dis-
charged Fast in April,' he heard Jenkins say that one of
the best things she ever did was to get rid of Fast. Later
on several occasions he heard Jenkins say Fast was "not
a nice person."
IV. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
1197
A. Credibility
At the outset it should be said that only a few wit-
nesses are not subject to extensive doubt with respect to
their veracity This is not to say that these witnesses can
be discredited on all points, but only to observe that at
various points in most of the witnesses' testimony they
should not be believed. Despite that observation, the
points of disbelief of the General Counsel's witnesses are
often not germane to the resolution of the liability issues.
Of the General Counsel's witnesses I found Al Spencer
and Sonya Isals to be the most reliable, with Langdon a
close third. The other two, Fast and Phillips, have dis-
abilities which give me pause, but where they are cor-
roborated by the other three I have no difficulty with
their versions. Fast, however, clearly dissembled with re-
spect to her denial that she telephoned the Wicks `N'
Sticks store in Mesa, Arizona. I found Phillips, with re-
spect to his duties and responsibilities while employed at
Respondent, to be an exagerator, particularly with re-
spect to his contribution to the building of the kiln. In
that regard, I found Respondent's witness Wygachiewicz
to be far more credible. Even so, Phillips' inflated sense
of self-importance does not particularly detract from his
testimony with respect to the authority given him by
Tasse to engage in antiunion activities. Moreover, that
portion of his testimony is corroborated circumstantially.
With respect to Respondent's testimony I found only
the disinterested witnesses to be wholly truthful-Sco-
ville, the owner of the Mesa Wicks `N' Sticks store, Wy-
gachiewicz, and Reifsteck. Neither Tasse nor Jenkins
was reliable. With respect to Tasse I note the numerous
inconsistencies between her testimony and her pretrial
affidavit(s), as well as a not so adept facility for painting
over factual holes when faced with them. I find Jenkins
to be equally unreliable; her denials, often led, were
hollow. Her self-effacement with respect to her authority
within the plant, as well as her corporate officership, is
simply disengenuous. Supporting witnesses, principally
McLaughlin, Frei, and Stepina, to a lesser' extent, seem
to be motivated either by personal loyally to Tasse and
Jenkins or fear for their jobs. Whatever their motives
were, it was not to tell the whole truth. Indeed, personal
loyalty is a feature which can also be found in testimony
of some of the General Counsel's witnesses. This is par-
ticularly true in the case of Phillips who has demonstrat-
ed an easy capacity to change loyalties.
Accordingly, I have specifically found the testimony
of witnesses Langdon, Al Spencer, and Islas (whose tes-
timony had little independent significance, but was cor-
roborative) to be the cornerstone of my findings. Where
other individuals such as Phillips and Fast are corrobo-
rated by those three, that version has been credited. To
the extent- that those versions have been denied by Re-
spondent's witnesses, I conclude that the General Coun-
sel's witnesses are the more believable.
B. Phillips' Agency Status
As was recited above, Phillips testified that beginning
April 28 and reemphasized on the morning of April 29,
1198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Tasse and Jenkins authorized him to engage in certain
antmmon conduct . This included the harassment of
Langdon, soliciting the revocation of union authorization
cards and denigrating the Union generally. In this regard
he says `he offered to do these things - for Tasse and Jen-
kins and - that Tasse hold him, "Do it." In addition, in
Tasse and Jenkins' presence on April 29, he telephoned
the Union, demanding the return of the authorization
cards. When that did not immediately succeed, with
Tasse - and Jenkins " approval, he drafted a pattern letter
requesting the return of the cards and solicited the signa-
tures of each employee. Furthermore , it is undenied that
on company time he delivered those letters to the union
hall in Salinas.
Tasse admits being present during the telephone con-
versation , but denies she authorized Phillips to engage in
the conduct . However , it is clear that she knew he was
doing those things, 'including the harassment of Langdon,
and paid him for his time to try to retrieve the authoriza-
tion cards . At no time did she ever effectively revoke his
authority in this area or repudiate his conduct . It is true
that on occasion after he was particularly sueccessful in
reducing Langdon to tears or getting Fast's goat, that
Tasse admonished him. His testimony that she later told
him that such admonitions were to be considered "cos-
metic" is specifically - credited . Although it appears that
Tasse's antiunion posture diminished somewhat in mid-
May, had she truly wished to revoke the license she had
given Phillips, she ' would have been much firmer.
Indeed, the severity of Phillips ' abuse of Langdon and
Tasse's occasional weak admonition of him tends to con-
firm Phillips' testimony that she would have done signifi-
cantly more-including a private conference with him
and, if she still failed 'to heed that directive , suspension
or worse. Instead, Tasse treated the matter lightly and
without force.
Finally, Jenkins rewarded Phillips by giving him a sur-
plus kiln frame valued at $1000. I reach' this conclusion
even though the reward was tacit rather than explicit.
The "gift" speaks more than words could.
I find, therefore , the General Counsel has proven that
Phillips had been specially deputized to perform a wide
range of antiunion activities and was at all times Re-
spondent's agent in the commission of those acts. Re-
spondent is therefore liable under Section 8 (a)(1) for all
of Phillips ' antiunion conduct, including seeking the rev-
ocation of the authorization cards and the verbal abuse
of Langdon.
C. The Violations
1. The Fast discharge -
First, it is fair to say that Fast is not the excellent em-
ployee she purports to be. I have no doubt that many of
the shortcomings Tasse pointed out were in fact occur-
ring. There is - no question that, Fast failed to tell the
entire truth on her application form with respect to the
reasons she left the Reifsteck Agency. Moreover , I think
it is fair to say that she did not handle the timecards and
the deposits as well as they should have been handled.
Indeed , I think she recognized her shortcomings-after
all, in early April, she attempted to change her job from
that of secretary/bookkeeper to one of plant liaison, a
position she no doubt felt she , could - better handle, given
its more flexible definition. Unfortunately the Studio was
too small to justify such a job . When that job was denied
her she became frustrated and showed an immediate
sense of vindictiveness . That vindictiveness appeared in
April on her discharge and again in July when she tele-
phoned customer Scoville in , Mesa and accused Tasse
and Jenkins of lesbianism.
However, despite Fast's shortcomings it is clear that
Respondent had not made any decision to discharge her
until she became specifically identified with union orga-
nizing. Tasse gave shifting , and unconvincing testimony
that the decision had been made to discharge Fast some-
time before April 25 . Nevertheless, on April 26 she sent
Fast and two others to Santa Cruz to be trained,on the
newly installed payroll system. Had Tasse intended to
discharge Fast she ' would not have bothered to, send her
to the training session . Furthermore , although Fast was
late for work on the morning of April - 29, the supposed
trigger incident, the fact remains that her tardiness was
not different from the tardiness which Respondent had
permitted since the first of the year arising from Fast's
employment as a, teacher at the community college. Ac-
cordingly , I conclude that the reasons Tasse has ad-
vanced -to explain the discharge of Fast are simply pre-
texts.
Moreover, Tasse and Jenkins made admissions to em-
ployees Langdon , Phillips, and Spencer with respect to
their true motivations-that Fast was fired because she
was a union organizer . Accordingly , I conclude that the
General Counsel has proven Respondent discharged Vir-
ginia Fast because she had engaged in union organizing.
Such a discharge violates Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act.
Fast was reemployed on May 17, remaining at, work
for approximately 2 weeks. According to her testimony,
she found it very,unpleasant on her return . Indeed, it ap-
pears that to some extent the reinstatement offer misled
Fast for Tasse had asked her to return to her "former
employment" and had told her "re-employment would
be under the same terms and conditions that existed at
the time of your termination ." That would suggest there
were to -be no changes in either her job duties or in the
work atmosphere. However, both were changed , signifi-
cantly. Approximately 25 percent of her work had been
taken away, she was put under minute-by-minute surveil-
lance, harassed by Jenkins , told she could not talk with
others about nonbusiness matters, and was targeted by
Respondent 's agent Phillips for abuse. She had' at least
two direct altercations with Phillips who - was acting
under license from Tasse to' prevent unionization. The
only allegation made by the General Counsel which I do
not find constituted a change in her working conditions
was Jenkins ' denying Fast the right to enter the plant to
go to the break area. It is clear that Fast was often inap-
propriately dressed to enter the Studio, wearing high-
heeled shoes in an area which was slick with wet clay
from the potters ' wheels. That she had to', walk around
the building , even if it was as much as half a block, is of
little significance.
STUDIO S .J.T. 1199
In this circumstance I have no difficulty in concluding
that Respondent was deliberately imposing these burdens
of Fast to force her to resign . Furthermore,- those bur-
dens were imposed because of her union activities. I find
therefore that Fast's departure on June 3 was it construc-
tive discharge in violation of Section 8(a)(3). Boyles Gal-
vanizing Co., 239 NLRB 530, 540 (1978); Liberty Markets,
236 NLRB 1486 (1978).
2. Barbara Langdon
Langdon, along with Fast and Gates, was one of the
three principal union activists as of late April. She was
specifically reported by Phillips to Tasse on April 28.
Phillips testified that in essence he was directed to take
whatever action he could against her to render her inef-
fective as a union organizer . Accordingly, be ridiculed
her, made false accusations against her, and created evi-
dence that she was unable to get along with coworkers.
This ultimately resulted in reports from Stepina and
McLaughlin to Tasse regarding these supported short-
comings and they immediately appeared in Langdon's
evaluation of May 2. They were repeated in the second
evaluation. Prior to receiving those evaluations she had.
not been counseled or in any way warned that her per-
formance was less than exemplary. Indeed, she had
served as foreperson of the shop, and although her per-
formance in that capacity did not work out, there is
nothing to suggest that her work as a line employee, was
anything less than good to excellent. Langdon conceded
that with certain pottery pieces she needed- to improve
her speed. Even 'so, this was hardly enough to warrant
the overall negative ratings which she was given.
It is true that in January when she was demoted from
foreperson to technician her wage rate dropped from $9
to $7 per hour and she was somewhat perturbed about
that: Nonetheless, at that time she was given the oppor-
tunity to maintain her overall income supplementing her
pay by throwing pieces "by. the bag." 'I, therefore, do
not believe her demotion much affected her attitude. She
continued contract work until May 2 when Jenkins told
her that her union activities had "screwed" her and they
would no longer permit 'her to perform contract labor,
the excuse being that it was a "gray" practice under state
law.
I conclude that Respondent reduced Langdon's pay
rate by denying her the opportunity to earn additional
money through "by the bag" payments' because she had
engaged in union organizing. Likewise the false job per-
formance evaluations' were given Langdon for the same
reason . Accordingly, I find such conduct by Respondent
was discriminatory and in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1).
3. The layoff of June 28.
As noted, on June 28, Respondent announced a layoff'
of all employees who had been hired prior to October
31, 1982. This resulted in the layoff of at least employees
Langdon, Phillips, Al Spencer, and Islas, ' To justify this
decision Tasse contended that the orders expected from
a sales show held in early June had not materialized. She
did not specifically point to any documentation which
led her to that conclusion. In rebuttal the General Coun-
sel examined some financial records and,pointed to the
fact that the income sales records beginning in, July were
the highest of the year and were sustained through at
least September. He argues that these figures effectively
give the lie to Tasse's testimony.
While the observation is significant , I find Tasse's se-
lection of the cutoff date for laid-off employees to be
even more important. Furthermore it was not fully, ad-
hered to. Langdon had been rehired in early November.
She was one of the three principal union organizers and
the only one remaining on the staff after early June. i a
Both Phillips and Spencer had heard admissions of Re-
spondent 's intentions with respect to Langdon. They
heard on different occasions statements by Tasse and
Jenkins to the effect that although they had gotten rid of
Fast they would find a way to rid themselves of Lang-
don -later.
Moreover, by treating Stepina's March-April absence
as a leave of absence rather than a quit, Respondent was
able in the face of the cutoff date to retain Stepina who
had demonstrated her loyalty. I note that Stepina's per-
sonnel jacket shows that she had originally announced
herself' as a quit but at a later point the record was
changed to,reflect a leave of absence. Even her -room-
mate, McLaughlin, described Stepina's action as a 'quit.
Furthermore, Stepina herself says she was seeking other
employment and was quite angry with Respondent be-
cause she had been falsely accused of theft. Thus,' I find
that in March Stepina had quit and her rehire was not a
return from a leave of absence, but was a new hire. Any
notations to the contrary`' appear to be after-the-fact ef-
forts to retain her in the face of a policy to the contrary.
Finally, I note that Phillips had'become, by that time,
a liability. Although a good potter, he had now' outlived
his usefulness as an antiunion agent and both Tasse and
Jenkins had learned he did not know as much about kiln
building as he had claimed. His abrasive personality no
doubt had worn thin Tasse's tolerance. Moreover, Jen-
kins had paid him off with the kiln frame. Laying him
off along with other less valuable employees was a rela-
tively easy decision for Tasse to'make.
I conclude that the June 28 layoff was discriminatorily
motivated and deliberately manipulated., Phillips had
failed to force Langdon to leave and Langdon had not
provided Respondent with a credible -reason to discharge
her. In order to sweep the Studio clean, Tasse decided to
discharge Langdon by declaring a phony economic
layoff. This decision had the additional' benefit of ridding
Respondent of Phillips ' while having' no impact on pro-
ductivity as Islas (on leave) and the untrained new em-
ployees were readily replaceable and Al Spencer's office
job was only part time. Little harm was done to produc-
tivity for McLaughlin and Stepina were retained and
others were hired shortly thereafter., Moreover, Re-
spondent's principal potter, Becher, continued to
produce as always. Finally, the better "designers," Frei
and Denise Spencer, remained (Frei, of course, had had
13 Gates had.quit in early May and is not the subject of the instant
complaint. Fast, although she had returned for 2 weeks, had again left
1200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a long relationship with Respondent having worked for
it in Arizona prior to its moving to Castroville in 1980).
The layoff did little harm to Respondent but had the
clear benefit of ridding it of remaining union organizer
Langdon.
4. Interference, restraint, and coercion
The complaint alleges some 26 independent violations
of Section 8(a)(1). Many involve similar conduct on dif-
ferent occasions and separate remedies for each would be
repetitive. I shall only highlight the most obvious.
Tasse's.April 28 discussion of the anonymous phone
call clearly created the impression among employees that
their union organizing was under some sort of scrutiny
by Tasse. It suggested that someone was reporting the
employees' conduct to her. In fact, it gave the impres-
sion that the reports were dangerously inaccurate in that
employees were being seen as saboteurs rather than as
organizers. Accusing as saboteurs employees who were
lawfully organizing themselves would obviously have
the effect of deterring' them from further organizing.
Thus, such conduct not only created the impression of
surveillance, it was independently coercive as well. It
violated Section 8(a)(l).
Furthermore, at the meeting Respondent for the first
time offered some new benefits. These were the job eval-
uation program, which could result in merit wage in-
creases; the wage classification schedule; and the addi-
tion of paid holidays. All of these may well have been
under some sort of consideration prior to April 28, but
they were inchoate until Tasse got wind of the organiz-
ing, whether from the anonymous caller or because Jen-
kins had seen employees "clustering." The organizing
obviously triggered- their implementation. Indeed, the
wage program was so hastily put together it was in
handwritten form. Likewise, the paid holidays were hast-
ily implemented. Respondent presented a handwritten
slip purportedly posted on April 1. It was not seen , by
anybody except Frei who cannot be believed. Islas said
she' never saw it even though she had read everything in
the plant when hired in April. Al Spencer said Tasse
told him when he was hired that there were no paid
holidays because Respondent could not afford it. I con-
clude that the slip (R. Exh. 1) is false. Thus, all three
items were implemented as a response to the union orga-
nizing as an effort to dissuade employees from unioniz-
ing.3 Such conduct violated, Section 8(a)(1).
On several occasions Tasse and Jenkins told employees
that if the'Union became their representative, the Studio
would be closed. Both Tasse and Jenkins told Phillips
and Langdon that Fast had been discharged because of
her union organizing . Jenkins interrogated Langdon
about her union activity and that of other employees.
She' also told Langdon that she had "screwed" herself by
engaging in union activity and, for that reason was' being
denied- "by the bag" pay. Jenkins' threats to Fast, on her
return, including the physical abuse (raking her back and
snapping' her bra) were also responses to Fast's' union
proclivities, all violated Section '8(a)(1).
Finally, there is the Phillips matter. By simply recruit-
ing him, an employee, to engage in antiunion conduct,
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1). Furthermore, it is
responsible for his activity as set forth above. In Jenkins'
own words, he regularly "massacred" Langdon, and co-
erced employees into revoking their authorization cards.
That, too, violated Section 8(a)(1).
On the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record
in this case, I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Studio S.J.T., Limited is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. United Food & Commercial Workers, Union, Local
839, AFL-CIO is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent, on the dates shown in 'this decision,
violated Section 8(a)(1) by:
(a) Creating the impression among its employees that
their union activities were under surveillance.
(b) Instituting new merit and wage classification sys-
tems for the purpose of discouraging employee support
for the Union.
(c) Threatening to shut the plant down if the Union.
became the employees' collective-bargaining representa-
tive.
(d) Telling employees that another employee would be
discharged because 'she had joined, supported, or assisted
the Union, and later telling employees that an employee
had been discharged because she had joined, supported,
or assisted the Union.
(e) Interrogating employees concerning their union ac-
tivities, sympathies, and desires and those of other em-
ployees.
(f) Granting paid holidays for the purpose of under-
mining employees' support for the Union.
(g) Telling an employee that her union activity, was
the reason that she was being paid less money for her
services.
(h) Threatening an employee with violence to her
person or property and/or physically abusing an employ-
ee because that employee had engaged in union activity.
(i) Recruiting, encouraging, and authorizing an em-
ployee to harass, abuse, and intimidate employees who
had joined, supported, or assisted the Union.
(j) Orally harassing, abusing , and intimidating employ-
ees through, its agent because the employees had joined,
supported , or assisted the Union.
(k) Its agent's coercing, employees to seek the revoca-
tion and/or the return of their union authorization cards.
(1) Threatening to make derogatory statements - about
an employee to her second employer because of her
union activity.
4. By discharging its employee Virginia Marie Fast on
April 29, 1983, and by constructively discharging her on
June 3, 1983, because she was a union organizer, Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
5. By reducing the wage earning, opportunities of its
employee Barbara Langdon in early May 1983 and by
thereafter making ' false, personnel evaluations tending to
undermine her hire and tenure bcause she had engaged in
union activity, Respondent violated 'Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act. '
STUDIO S.J.T.
6. By laying off,, on June 28, 1983, its employees Al
Spencer, George Phillips, Barabra Langdon, and Sonya
Islas, and others, in order, to rid itself of a union activist,
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
7. (a), On April 29, 198-3, the Union represented a ma-
jority of the Respondent's employees in units appropriate
for collective bargaining ; the employees' subsequent rev-
ocation is without legal -effect for their revocation was
obtained illegally.
(b) The unfair labor practices found above in para-
graphs 3, 4, 5, and 6 are so pervasive and egregious that
they cannot be remedied by a cease-and-desist order and
have created an atmosphere which will not permit the
holding of a fair elecetion and therefore can be remedied
only by an order requiring Respondent to recognize and
bargain with the Union.
(c) By failing to recognize the Union upon its demand
of May 2, 1983, when it was under an obligation to do
so, ]Respondent violated 'Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found'that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (3),
and (^), of the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered
to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirma-
tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The affirmative action shall include an order requiring
Respondent immediately to make whole certain employ-
ees for lost earnings as a result of its decisions to dis-
charge, lay off, or reduce the earnings opportunities of
employees and immediately to reinstate certain employ-
ees to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longere exist,
lo substantially equivalent jobs. However, neither- Fast
nor Phillips will be ordered reinstated.
Backpay and interest, if applicable, shall be computed
on a quarterly basis in the manner prescribed by the
Board in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and
Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977). See generally
Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). In
addition, Respondent shall be required to expunge from
its personnel records and all other files any reference to
the discharges, layoffs, wage reductions, and illegally
motivated personnel ratings found herein and to notify
each employee in writing that this has been done and
that evidence of his or her unlawful treatment will not
be used as a basis for -future personnel action against
them. -
Finally, I conclude' that these discharges, layoffs, and
improperly motivated personnel evaluations as well as
the myriad of independent 8(a)(1) violations have so ppl-
luted the employment' atmosphere as to render ,a repre-
sentation election impossible. Indeed the antiunion atmos-
phere is so virulent and-so pervasive that normal Board
remedies would never fully. clear the atmosphere. Ac=
cordingly, Respondent shall be ordered to recognize and
bargain with the Union for there is no other alternative
to providing the employees with their true desire. The
bargaining order shall be retroactive to April 28, 1983,
the day Respondent embarked upon its efforts to under-
mine the ` Union's majority status., In general, see NLRB
v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575 (1967); Trading Port,
1201
Inc 219 NLRB 298 (1975); Pecker Run Coal Co., 228
NLRB 93 (1977); Washington Beef Producer`s, 264,NLRB
1163 (1982), enfd, by unpublished decision #83-7212 (9th
Cir. June 7, 1984).
With respect to Fast, I find that her telephone call to
the Mesa, Arizona customer,, requesting that it not buy
Respondent's production because its owners were lesbi-
ans is an act of sufficient disloyalty and vindictiveness as
to deprive her of the right to be reinstated. She is enti-
tled to backpay and interest, however, from April 2,
1983, until the date she made' the call. I note in this
regard the accusation of lesbianism was denied. But even
if true that fact would not be relevant. As the Board said
in Patterson-Sargent Co., 115 NLRB 1627 at 1629 (1956):
[T]he truth or falsity of these statements, in " our
opinion, is not material, and not the test of their
protected character [footnote ornitted]. Statements
made by employees to .the public which deliberately
cast discredit upon their employer's product or
service are no less disloyal and a breach of confi-
dence because they, are truthful. For, as the Su-
preme Court has recently, observed in the Jefferson
Standard case involving a situation of striking simi-
larity, "There` is no more elemental, cause for dis-
charge of an employee than disloyalty to his em-
ployer.-5
5 Local Union No. 1229, IBEW (Jefferson Standard Broadcasting
Ca) P. NLRB, 346 U S 464, 472 (1953)
While the disloyal conduct in Patterson-Sargent and
Jefferson Standard was product disparagement, instead of
an ad hominem attack- to a customer, I see little differ-
ence between them as a practical matter. Moreover,
given the nature of the accusation , it seems quite unlikely
that Tasse and Fast could ever work together again on
an amicable basis. Reinstatement simply would not work
here; the job requires in trust, something which has
been forever destroyed. Accordingly I conclude that Re-
spondent need not reinstate Fast. It must, nevertheless,
pay her backpay as set forth above. QIC Corp., 212,
NLRB 63 fn. 2 (1974), citing Pepsi-Cola Bottling of Lum-
berton , 203 NLRB 183 (1973).
With respect to Phillips, I also conclude he is not enti-
tled to reinstatement ., His situation is quite similar to that
found in Indian Head Lubricants, 261 NLRB 12 (1982).
In that case one Darden accepted a $1500 bribe to sub-
vert the Board's processes by voting against the union in
a Board election. The Board refused"" to reinstate him
after an injury even though the General Counsel proved
that the failure to reinstate was discriminatorily motivat-
ed, to cover up a separate, illegally, motivated layoff.
Likewise, Phillips was given a valuable piece of equip-
ment as an obvious reward for his antiunion activity. He,
too, was caught in a subsequent illegally motivated
layoff. What the Board said - about Darden in Indian
Head, applies equally to Phillips;
By such conduct Darden made it inappropriate for
the Board to order him restored to Respondent's
employ where he may be used again as Respond-
1202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ent's agent for unlawful purposes. Neither is an
award of backpay appropriate in these circum-
stances. Darden's flagrant and malicious subversions
of the Act's purpose and processes bars him from
participating in these processes to obtain a remedy
for himself for misconduct which was an integral
part of his and Respondent's subversion of the Act.
Accordingly, Phillips will be denied reinstatement to
prevent a recurrence of his illegal conduct. Neither is a
backpay award appropriate.14
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
edis
ORDER
The Respondent, Studio S.J.T., Limited, Castroville,
California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees
with respect to the exercise of their Section 7 rights by:
(1) Creating the impression among its employees that
their union activities are under surveillance
(2) Instituting new merit and wage classification sys-
tems for the purpose of discouraging employee support
for the Union.
(3) Threatening to shut the plant down if the Union
were to become the collective-bargaining representative
of its employees.
(4) Telling employees that another employee would be
discharged because he/she joined, supported, or assisted
the Union and telling employees that an employee had
been discharged because he/she had joined, supported,
or assisted the Union.
(5) Interrogating employees concerning their union ac-
tivities, sympathies, and desires and those of other em-
ployees.
(6) Granting paid holidays for the purpose of under-
mining employees' support for the Union.
(7) Telling employees that their union activities are the
reason that they are being paid less money for their serv-
ices.
(8) Threatening employees with violence to their
person or property and/or physically abusing employees
because they engage in union activity.
(9) Recruiting, encouraging, or authorizing any em-
ployee to harass, abuse, or intimidate any other employee
who loin, support, or assist the Union.
(10) Orally harassing, abusing, or intimidating employ-
ees because they join, support, or assist unions.
(11) Soliciting employees to seek the revocation
and/or the return of their union authorization cards.
14 In view of my decision to deny Phillops reinstatement and backpay
it is unnecessary to make factual findings about an alleged altercation in
July 1983 between Phillips, Tasse, and Jenkins
is If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 10246 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
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 pur-
poses
(12) Threatening to make derogatory statements about
employees to his or her other employers because of their
union activity.
(b) Discharging or constructively discharging employ-
ees, laying them off, reducing their wages, and making
false performance appraisals because they seek union rep-
resentation.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 16
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Immediately recognize and bargain collectively in
good faith with United Food and Commercial Workers
Union, Local 839, AFL-CIO as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the follow-
ing appropriate units, retroactive to April 28, 1983, and
,on request embody in writing and sign any agreement or
understanding which is reached:
Unit 1: All full-time and part-time production and
maintenance employees of Respondent employed at
its Castroville, California facility excluding office
clericals, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
Unit 2: All business office employees employed by
Respondent at its Castroville, California facility ex-
cluding production and maintenance employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Immediately offer Albert Spencer, Barbara Lang-
don, Sonya Islas, and any other employee laid off on
June 28, 1983, reinstatement to their former jobs or, if
those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
jobs, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights
and privileges, dismissing if necessary any employee who
replaced them and make them whole, with interest, for
lost earnings in the manner set forth in the remedy sec-
tion of this decision, and also make whole, with interest,
Virginia Fast, for lost earnings up to such time as she
committed acts forfeiting her reinstatement rights.
(c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records nec-
essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(d) Remove from the personnel records and all other
files any reference to the unlawful discharge of Virginia
Fast, the layoffs of Albert Spencer, George Phillips, Bar-
bara Langdon, Sonya Islas, or any other employee so
treated on June 28, 1983, and the personnel evaluations
given Langdon and notify each, in writing, that this has
done and these records will not be used against them in
any way.
16 In view of the nature of these violations . particularly the harass-
ment , I conclude that Respondent has a general disregard for its obliga-
tions under the Act Accordingly a broad cease-and-desist order is appro-
priate See Hickmott Foods, 242 NLRB 1357 (1979)
STUDIO S J T.
(e) Post at Castroville, California facility copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."17 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 32, after being signed by the Respondent's au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respond-
ent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 con-
secutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
17 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered, us to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protec-
tion
To choose not to engage in any of these protect-
ed concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT create the impression that the union ac-
tivities of our employees are under surveillance.
WE WILL NOT institute merit and wage classification
systems or grant paid holidays to discourage our employ-
ees from engaging in union activity.
WE WILL NOT threaten to shut down our business if
any labor union becomes the collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of our employees.
WE WILL NOT tell employees that other employees
will be or have been discharged because of their union
activities.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees regarding the
union activities, sympathies, and desires of themselves or
others.
WE WILL NOT tell employees that their union activities
are the reason they are receiving less pay.
1203
- WE WILL NOT threaten employees with violence to
their person or property and WE WILL NOT physically
abuse employees because of their union activities.
WE WILL NOT recruit, encourage, or authorize any
employee to harass, abuse, or otherwise intimidate em-
ployees who join, support, or assist any labor union.
WE WILL NOT orally harass, abuse, or intimidate em-
ployees through an agent or otherwise because employ-
ees have joined, supported, or assisted a labor union.
WE WILL NOT, through an agent or otherwise, coerce
employees to revoke or seek the return of their union au-
thorization cards.
WE WILL NOT threaten to make derogatory reports
about our employees to any other employer because of
our employees' union activities, sympathies, or desires.
WE WILL NOT discharge, directly or constructively,
employees because of their union activity, and WE WILL
NOT lay off any employee to deter union activity.
WE WILL NOT reduce the wage earning opportunities
of any employees or make false personnel evaluations of
any employees because of their union activity,
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act,
WE WILL immediately recognize and bargain collec-
tively in good faith with United Food & Commercial
Workers Union, Local 839, AFL-CIO as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the employees in
the following appropriate units, retroactive to April 28,
1983 and, on request, embody in writing and sign any
agreement or understanding which is reached:
Unit 1: All full-time and part-time production and
maintenance employees of Respondent employed at
our Castroville, California facility excluding office
clericals, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
Unit 2: All business office employees employed by
Respondent at our Castroville, California facility ex-
cluding production and maintenance employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL immediately offer Albert Spencer, Barbara
Langdon, Sonya Islas, and any other employee laid off
on June 28, 1983, reinstatement to their former jobs or, if
those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
jobs, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights
and privileges, and make them, and V trginis Fast, whole
for any loss of earnings, plus interest, which they suf-
fered as the result of our discrimination against them.
WE WILL expunge from our personnel records and all
other files any reference to the discharge of Virginia
Fast, the layoffs of Albert Spencer, Barbara Langdon,
Sonya Islas, George Phillips, and any other employee so
treated on June 28, 1983, and the personnel evaluations
given Langdon and notify each, in writing, that we have
done so and will not use those records ' against them in
any way
STUDIO S.J .T., LIMITED