Teddi of California

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 28, 2003

338 N.L.R.B. 1032 (N.L.R.B. 2003)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1032
Teddi of California and United Industrial Workers,
Local 24. Case 21–CA–34636
April 28, 2003
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND ACOSTA
On February 8, 2002, Administrative Law Judge
Gregory Z. Meyerson issued the attached decision. The
General Counsel filed limited cross-exceptions and a
supporting brief, the Respondent filed an answering
brief, and the General Counsel filed a reply brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding1 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
modified below and to adopt the recommended Order as
modified and set forth in full below.
The judge, in the body of his decision, explicitly found
that Respondent violated the Act by telling employees
who were engaged in union activities to look for jobs
elsewhere if they were dissatisfied with their current
jobs, but did not include this finding in the conclusions
of law section of his opinion. The General Counsel, in
limited cross-exceptions, points out this omission. The
Respondent, in its answering brief, belatedly contests the
substance of this finding. In the absence of a timely ex-
ception to this finding, we shall modify the judge’s rec-
ommended Order to include this violation.2
The General Counsel, noting that most of the Respon-
dent’s employees speak Spanish and that the General
Counsel’s witnesses testified through an interpreter, also

1 On January 17, 2003, the Board severed and remanded to the Re-
gional Director Case 21–CA–34494, involving an alleged violation of
Sec. 8(a)(3) of the Act by the Respondent. Accordingly, there remains
before us only the Respondent’s alleged violations of Sec. 8(a)(1). The
judge found that the Respondent unlawfully interrogated employees
concerning their own or others’ union activities, membership, or sym-
pathies; impliedly promised employees unspecified benefits to discour-
age their support for the Union; created the impression among its em-
ployees that their union activities were under surveillance; threatened
employees with discharge, deportation, or other adverse action to dis-
courage them from supporting the Union; and, told employees that if
they were dissatisfied with their jobs they should look for work else-
where. There are no exceptions to these findings.
2 Chairman Battista concurs in the result. The judge did not reach a
conclusion of law with respect to this matter. Thus, it is not surprising
that the Respondent did not except to the factual findings which could
have supported such a conclusion. On the other hand, the General
Counsel did except to the judge’s failure to reach a conclusion of law.
The Respondent has filed an answer thereto. In these circumstances,
Chairman Battista would reach the merits, rather than decide the issue
on procedural grounds. He finds that the statement was made, and that
it was unlawful.
cross-excepts to the judge’s failure to order the notice
posted in Spanish. As this exception is not opposed by
the Respondent, it is granted.3
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified and set forth in full below and orders that the
Respondent, Teddi of California, Rancho Dominguez,
California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Interrogating employees concerning their own or
others’ union activities, membership, or sympathies.
(b) Impliedly promising employees unspecified bene-
fits so as to discourage their support for the Union.
(c) Creating the impression among its employees that
their union activities are under surveillance.
(d) Threatening its employees with discharge, deporta-
tion, or with other adverse action in order to discourage
employees from supporting the Union.
(e) Telling employees who engaged in union activities
that if they are dissatisfied with their jobs, they should
look for employment elsewhere.
(f) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Rancho Dominguez, California, copies of
the attached notice marked “Appendix”4 in English and
Spanish. Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 21 after being signed by
the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the
event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the
Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facil-
ity involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall
duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the no-
tices to all current employees and former employees em-
3 We correct the record to indicate that the Respondent’s facility is
located in Rancho Dominguez, California.
4 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
338 NLRB No. 157
TEDDI OF CALIFORNIA 1033
ployed by the Respondent at any time since April 9,
2001.
(b) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with Regional Director a sworn certification of a respon-
sible official on a form provided by the Region attesting
to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated the Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and
obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your
behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit
and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected ac-
tivities.

WE WILL NOT interrogate you concerning your own or
others’ union activities
WE WILL NOT impliedly promise you unspecified bene-
fits in an attempt to discourage you from supporting the
Union.
WE WILL NOT create among you the impression that
your union activities are under surveillance.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with discharge, deportation,
or with other adverse action in order to discourage you
from supporting the Union.
WE WILL NOT tell those of you who are engaged in un-
ion activities that if you are dissatisfied with your jobs
you should look for employment elsewhere.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.

TEDDI OF CALIFORNIA
Lisa E. McNeill, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Jeffrey A. Berman, of Los Angeles, California, and Gary A.
Freedman, of Santa Monica, California, for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GREGORY Z. MEYERSON, Administrative Law Judge. Pursu-
ant to notice, I heard this case in Los Angeles, California, on
December 3 and 4, 2001.1 Ana M. Portuguez, an individual

1 All dates are in 2001 unless otherwise indicated.
(Portuguez), filed an original unfair labor practice charge in
Case 21–CA–34494 on April 17, and United Industrial Work-
ers, Local 24 (the Union) filed an original and an amended
unfair labor practice charge in Case 21–CA–34636 on June 28
and September 6, respectively. Based upon those charges, the
Regional Director for Region 21 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board (the Board) issued a consolidated complaint on
September 17. The complaint alleged that Teddi of California
(the Respondent or the Employer) violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). The Re-
spondent filed a timely answer to the complaint denying the
commission of the alleged unfair labor practices.
All parties appeared at the hearing, and I provided them with
the full opportunity to participate, to introduce relevant evi-
dence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to argue
orally and file briefs. Based upon the record, my consideration
of the briefs filed by counsel for the General Counsel and coun-
sel for the Respondent, and my observation of the demeanor of
the witnesses,2 I now make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The complaint alleged, the answer admitted, and I find that
the Respondent is a California corporation, with an office and
place of business in Rancho Domingo, California, where at all
times material herein it has been engaged in the business of
distributing apparel. Further, I find that during the 12-month
period ending September 7, the Respondent, in the course and
conduct of its business operations, derived gross revenues in
excess of $ 500,000; and that during that same period, the Re-
spondent purchased and received at its Rancho Domingo, Cali-
fornia facility goods valued in excess of $5000 directly from
points located outside the State of California.
Accordingly, I conclude that the Respondent is now, and at
all times material herein has been, an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION
The Respondent’s answer denied the complaint allegation
that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the
Act. Counsel for the General Counsel called upon the Union’s
organizer, Ruben Velazquez, who testified that the Union was
able to improve the working conditions and wages of the em-
ployees of several employers with whom the Union had collec-
tive-bargaining agreements, and was in the process of attempt-
ing to negotiate a contract for the employees of another em-
ployer. Further, employees Santiago Coronel and Ana Portu-
guez testified as to their activities on behalf of the Union in
2 The credibility resolutions made in this decision are based on a re-
view of the testimonial record and exhibits with consideration given for
reasonable probability and the demeanor of the witnesses. See NLRB v.
Walton Mfg. Co., 369 U.S. 404, 408 (1962). Where witnesses have
testified in contradiction to the findings herein, I have discredited their
testimony, as either being in conflict with credited documentary or
testimonial evidence, or because it was inherently incredible and un-
worthy of belief.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1034
distributing authorization cards to other employees. The evi-
dence established that the Union is an organization in which
employees participate, and that exists for the purpose, in whole
or in part, of dealing with employers concerning wages, hours,
and other terms and conditions of employment. Therefore, I
find that at all times material herein, the Union has been a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Dispute
The complaint alleged that on several dates during the
months of March and April, various supervisors and agents of
the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights by means of:
threat of discharge, impression of surveillance, threat of depor-
tation, promise of benefit, and interrogation. Additionally, the
complaint alleged that on April 12, the Respondent laid off its
employee Ana Portuguez because of her activities on behalf of
the Union.
The Respondent’s answer denied the commission of any un-
fair labor practice, and it affirmatively alleged that any state-
ments made by supervisors or agents of the Respondent regard-
ing the Union were made in the exercise of free speech under
Section 8(c) of the Act and the United States Constitution.
Also, the Respondent alleged that Portuguez’ layoff was unre-
lated to her protected activity.
B. The Facts
The Respondent is engaged in the business of designing,
manufacturing, marketing, and selling women’s clothing. Fin-
ished product is distributed from its Rancho Domingo, Califor-
nia facility to retail customers located around the country. At
the time of the hearing, there were approximately 200 to 225
employees at the facility. In March and April, during the
events in question, there were approximately 275 employees.
The Union began an organizing campaign at the Employer’s
facility in approximately February.
Santiago Coronel, an employee in the Employer’s production
department, has been employed by Teddi since 1987. He re-
ceived union authorization cards from Ruben Velazquez in
approximately February, which he and four other employees
began to distribute to fellow employees. One of the employees
who assisted Coronel in distributing authorization cards was
Ana Portuguez. She worked for the Respondent in the traffic
department from February 18, 1998, until her layoff on April
12, 2001. Portuguez had previously been laid off for 1 week in
September 1998. The Respondent’s facility has seven depart-
ments, including: sales, design, merchandising, financial, data
processing, production, and traffic. The traffic department is
also referred to as the shipping or distribution department. The
only employees involved in the complaint allegations are em-
ployed in the traffic and production departments. In April,
during the events in question, there were approximately 125 to
140 employees employed in the traffic department, and ap-
proximately 70 employees in the production department. The
Respondent’s chief executive officer is Stuart Weiser and the
chief financial officer is Dennis Dunn. The Respondent’s wit-
nesses acknowledged that the traffic department is supervised
by Larry Wilson and his assistant, Teresa Rosales, and the pro-
duction department is supervised by Rodelinda (Gloria) Go-
mez. There is no dispute regarding the supervisory status of
Weiser, Dunn, Wilson, Rosales, and Gomez.
Santiago Coronel testified that on April 9, he was present at
a meeting called by Gloria Gomez and attended by approxi-
mately 17 or 18 employees. Gomez conducted the meeting in
Spanish, which is the primary language for the great majority of
the Respondent’s employees. According to Coronel, Gomez
told the employees that she knew that employees had “signed
cards.” She admitted not knowing who had been passing out
the cards, but indicated that this person was lying to the em-
ployees in order to get their money. Allegedly she told them to
not be “fools” and not be “brainwashed,” and to think for them-
selves. Coronel testified that she said, “I could fire you all at
this time, but I do not want to terminate you. If you are not
content, if you are not comfortable with this job, I’ve already
told you many times, that there’s the door quite open for you to
go and look for another job of [sic] you don’t like it here.”
Allegedly the meeting lasted 15 or 20 minutes.
Gloria Gomez has worked for Teddi for about 12 years. She
is currently the vice president for production, a position that she
has held for 5 years. Gomez testified that she had no meeting
with employees on April 9, but on April 16 she held a meeting
for a group of about 15 employees she supervised, including
Coronel. Gomez had been called early that morning by her
boss, Stuart Weiser, and told that there were “some rumors of
union organization or whatever going on in the warehouse.”
Weiser asked her to “go find out what their needs were, how
come they were not happy, and what we could do to help
them.” That led to her calling the meeting, actually one of two
that day. Gomez denied bringing up the subject of the Union,
and claimed it was the employees who raised the subject, as
they pointed fingers at each other, accusing fellow employees
of being union organizers. She testified that the only matter
which she brought up was that if employees “need help” or
were “not happy with the Company,” they should come to see
her and find out if there was something she could do to help.
According to her testimony, the meeting lasted only 5 or 10
minutes. At first, under direct examination, Gomez testified
that at the time of her meeting with employees on April 16, she
did not know that any of the employees she supervised, includ-
ing Coronel, were involved in union organizing activities.
However, on cross-examination Gomez was forced to acknowl-
edge that on April 11, she first learned from two employees that
Coronel was distributing union authorization cards.
According to Santiago Coronel, the day following the group
meeting, which he believes was April 10, he was called into
Gloria Gomez’ office. He testified that they were alone in the
office when Gomez told him that she had asked several em-
ployees who had been distributing union cards, and had been
informed that Coronel was the “leader” of the campaign. Go-
mez then asked him if he knew that he was harming his family.
She mentioned his two children who worked for Teddi, and
specifically his son, Higinio, because he was a manager.3 Go-

3 The complaint alleged Higinio Coronel as an agent of the Respon-
dent. However, I conclude that there was insufficient evidence pre-
TEDDI OF CALIFORNIA 1035
mez told Coronel that it had been hard for her to keep from the
boss that two of his children worked for the Company. She
said that management knew that Coronel and his family did not
have “documents.” She told him that the Employer could “fire
everybody, your whole family.” In addition to his two children,
Gomez mentioned that Coronel was jeopardizing his brother,
who also worked for Teddi. Coronel testified that when Gomez
used the term “documents,” he understood her to mean, “not
having legal papers, to be undocumented.”
Gloria Gomez denied that any such conversation ever took
place. She testified that at no time had she ever had a conversa-
tion with Coronel alone where the Union was ever discussed.
Specifically, she denied ever interrogating Coronel about his
union activity, ever threatening him or his family with dis-
charge, ever indicating to him that he was under surveillance,
or ever threatening him or his family with deportation. Further,
she testified that following the group meeting which she indi-
cated was held on April 16, Stuart Weiser instructed her not to
have any more meetings with employees about the Union, as
“consultants” would be coming to the facility to represent the
Employer’s interest. She claimed to have followed those in-
structions. In any event, as was noted above, although she
initially denied that on April 16 she had any knowledge of
Coronel’s union activity, Gomez ultimately admitted that she
learned as early as April 11 that he had been distributing union
cards.
Ana Portuguez testified that in March, Santiago Coronel
asked her to help him distribute union cards. Subsequently, she
spoke to fellow employees about the Union, and passed out six
authorization cards. According to Portuguez, one of the people
at Teddi who worked in the traffic department and who occa-
sionally assigned her work to perform was Maritza Ochoa.
Portuguez testified that 1 day in March, after she began to dis-
tribute union cards, she was approached by Ochoa who brought
up the subject of the Union. At the time, Portuguez was work-
ing in the company of eight or ten other employees. Ochoa said,
“Somebody among you is distributing cards from the Union.”
Allegedly, Ochoa warned the employees not to do so, and to
“protect” their jobs. She further warned them that they would
be fired for continuing to distribute cards.
However, on cross-examination, Portuguez was forced to
admit that the affidavit which she gave to an agent of the Board
during the investigation of the unfair labor practice charges in
these matters did not make mention of the alleged incident with
Ochoa in March. Portuguez insisted that she gave the informa-
tion to the Board agent, despite the fact that no mention of it
was contained in the affidavit.
The Respondent has employed Maritza Ochoa for 5 years.
She has held the position of lead person in the traffic depart-
ment for the past 3 years. The complaint alleged that Ochoa
was an agent of the Respondent. However, the Respondent’s
answer denied that allegation. In her testimony, Ochoa denied
ever having a conversation with Portuguez regarding unions or
union authorization cards.

sented at the hearing to establish that he was anything other than an
ordinary employee.
According to Portuguez, the next time that Ochoa talked to
her about the Union was on April 12. She was at her sewing
machine when Ochoa approached and asked her if she knew
who was passing out cards. While her testimony was some-
what confusing, it appears that Portuguez is claiming that she
and Ochoa had a conversation about why Ochoa did not want
the Union to organize Teddi. Further, Ochoa was alleged to
have said that the Employer was going to “investigate” to de-
termine who was passing out union cards. After further ques-
tions were asked of Portuguez, she apparently told Ochoa that
she had passed out cards, and that a male coworker had given
her the cards. As was noted above, Ochoa denied ever having a
conversation with Portuguez regarding unions or union authori-
zation cards.
Portuguez testified that later on April 12, Ochoa approached
Isabel Sotelo’s sewing machine, which was located next to
hers. Sotelo was a fellow employee who was not at her ma-
chine at the time. According to Portuguez, Ochoa said that she
was looking for something, opened the door of the machine and
removed what Portuguez recognized to be a union card. Ochoa
then took the card to the Respondent’s office. Portuguez had
given this card to Sotelo some time prior to that day.
While Ochoa admitted obtaining a union authorization card
on April 12, her version of the events was significantly differ-
ent from that of Portuguez. She testified that employee Saide
Vazquez approached her and asked, “Is it true we have to sign
some cards or we get fired by the Company?” According to
Ochoa, she had no idea what kind of cards Vazquez was refer-
ring to, and so she reported the matter to her boss, Larry Wil-
son, who at the time was with Dennis Dunn. Allegedly, Wilson
was unaware of what kind of card Vazquez was referring to,
and he directed Ochoa to go back to Vazquez and find out.
Ochoa testified that she went back and asked Vazquez what
kind of card she was talking about, at which point Vazquez
gave her the card. Ochoa took the card and brought it to both
Wilson and Dunn. She claimed that she neither read the card
nor recognized it as a union card. Ochoa denied ever getting a
union card from Isabel Sotelo’s work area. Both Wilson and
Dunn essentially supported Ochoa’s testimony.
The Respondent laid off Ana Portuguez on April 12. She
was one of 15 employees who were laid off on that date from
the traffic department. However, of the laid-off employees,
Portuguez was the only full-time employee, while all the others
were temporary employees. According to Dennis Dunn, a full-
time employee works for the Employer full time and receives
all the company benefits, including vacation pay, holiday pay,
and medical insurance. A temporary employee is hired for an
indefinite length of time and receives no benefits. Dunn testi-
fied that for layoff purposes, seniority is not a consideration,
nor is whether an employee is full time or temporary. Alleg-
edly, the only considerations are the staffing needs of the Com-
pany and the individual employee’s job performance. Dunn
acknowledged that layoff selections are based simply on a
“subjective evaluation” of needs and performance. He men-
tioned a layoff in the traffic department in December of 2000,
where both temporary and full-time employees were laid off.
As for the April 12 layoff, Dunn testified that the decision re-
garding the number of employees to be laid off and who they
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1036
should be was made by Larry Wilson, in consultation with
Teresa Rosales. According to Dunn, he and Wilson discussed
Wilson’s intention to lay off employees in his department about
1 week prior to the actual layoff. Dunn testified that at the time
the layoff was implemented, he had no knowledge of any union
activity on the part of Ana Portuguez, and in fact had only
heard the word union mentioned in connection with Teddi for
the first time on April 12.
Wilson’s testimony generally supported Dunn. According to
Wilson, he made the decision to lay off employees in his de-
partment about 1 week prior to the effective date of April 12.
He and Teresa Rosales then discussed the individuals who were
to be laid off. Wilson denied knowing about Ana Portuguez’
union activity, or anything about the union campaign, at the
time the decision was made as to who should be laid off. Wil-
son testified that when Portuguez returned to Teddi after an
earlier layoff, she was rehired specifically to sew labels on
garments. (See R. Exh. 4.) At the time of the April 12 layoff,
Portuguez was the only employee in the traffic department
whose primary responsibility was sewing labels, although as
the need arose, other employees were assigned to assist her for
short periods of time. Wilson testified at length about the need
to switch garment labels on clothing originally ordered by sev-
eral large retail customers, including Montgomery Ward.
When Ward went out of business, it was necessary to switch
the labels from Ward’s individual label to the Teddi label. This
required the sewer, specifically Portuguez, to perform the work.
According to Wilson, consideration had been given to laying
off Portuguez at the time of an earlier layoff in December 2000.
However, Wilson decided not to do so, because that was the
time when it seemed that Ward might be going out of business,
and the services of a sewer would be in demand. As time
passed and clothing labels were changed to the Teddi label,
there was less work for Portuguez to perform. According to
Wilson, because the sewing work had diminished, Portuguez
was given other work to perform, such as price ticketing or
packing. He allegedly selected her for layoff, because the lack
of label sewing made her expendable, especially when she was
being used in the price ticketing area, where a significant num-
ber of employees were about to be laid off.
Ana Portuguez testified that she was informed at the time of
her layoff that she was being let go because of a lack of work.
She protested that there was still work to perform, and that she
was a “permanent” employee. Apparently by this statement she
meant a full-time employee, as opposed to a temporary em-
ployee. Portuguez testified that while most of her time at Teddi
had been spent sewing, she also packed and priced. It is coun-
sel for the General Counsel’s contention that the Respondent
did not have a legitimate business reason for laying off Portu-
guez, but was simply motivated by union animus.
IV. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
A. The 8(a)(1) Allegations
Gloria Gomez was not a credible witness. Her testimony re-
garding the events of April 9 and 10 was inherently implausi-
ble. Additionally, she was untruthful about her knowledge of
Santiago Coronel’s union activity. Coronel placed the meeting
Gomez had with employees on April 9, which meeting Gomez
admitted calling. However, she placed the meeting on April 16.
As I find Coronel a much more credible witness, I will accept
his contention that the meeting was held on April 9. In any
event, the complaint allegation is phrased as “On about April
9,” which is certainly broad enough to encompass the entire
period in question.
According to Gomez, she called the meeting because her
boss, Stuart Weiser, asked her to find out why the employees
were not happy, what their needs were, and what management
could do to help. He asked her to do this because he had heard
“some rumors” of union organizing. While Gomez admitted
that the meeting with the employees lasted 5 or 10 minutes, she
testified that the only matter she raised was her willingness to
help employees, if they were unhappy and would come to her
with their problems. She denied mentioning the Union and
alleged that the topic only came up when the employees on
their own began to point to one another, accusing their fellow
employees of being union organizers. In my view, her version
of these events is highly implausible. There was obviously
much more discussed at a meeting that lasted 5 or 10 minutes
than simply Gomez’ offer to help employees with their prob-
lems. The Union was clearly discussed. It is ridiculous to
think that the employees brought up the subject of the Union on
their own, or that without any prompting from Gomez, they
began to point to each other and accuse fellow employees of
being union organizers. The meeting was called because
Weiser had heard rumors of union organizing, and it is simply
logical to assume that Gomez brought up the subject of the
Union.
The version of events as testified to by Santiago Coronel is
much more plausible. His credibility is enhanced by his will-
ingness to testify at variance with his past and current supervi-
sor. According to Coronel, Gomez told the employees that she
knew they had signed cards, although she did not know who
had given them the cards. She said that the person passing out
the cards was lying to the employees just to get their money,
that they were being brainwashed, and not to be fools, but to
think, Gomez warned the employees that she could fire them all
at that time, although she did not want to do so. She reminded
the employees that she had told them many times that if they
were not content, not comfortable with their job, that the door
was open to look for another job. Coronel estimated that the
meeting lasted between 15 and 20 minutes.
Having credited the version of events as testified to by Santi-
ago Coronel, I conclude that on April 9 the Respondent, acting
through its supervisor, Gloria Gomez, violated the Act by giv-
ing its employees the impression that their union activities were
under surveillance, and by threatening them with discharge or
other unspecified reprisals because of their union and protected
concerted activities. Further, the Respondent violated the Act
by Gomez’ statement to the employees that if they were dissat-
isfied with their jobs, presumably because of their interest in
the Union, they should look for work elsewhere.4 Also, by her
own testimony, Gomez acknowledged telling the employees
that if they were unhappy, to come to her with their problems.

4 See Christie Electric Corp., 284 NLRB 740, 776 (1987).
TEDDI OF CALIFORNIA 1037
This was clearly an implied promise of unspecified benefits, so
as to dissuade their support for the Union and, as such, a viola-
tion of the Act.5 I find all the above statements by Gomez, as
alleged in paragraphs 6(a), (c), (d), (f), (g), and (h) of the com-
plaint, to constitute violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
However, regarding the allegations in paragraphs 6(b) and
(e) of the complaint, that on April 9 Gloria Gomez threatened
employees with being reported to the Immigration and Natu-
ralization Service, and with a reduction in their hours of work, I
find no evidence to support these specific claims. Therefore, I
shall recommend dismissal of these allegations of the com-
plaint.
Santiago Coronel testified that on April 10, the day follow-
ing the group meeting, he was called into Gloria Gomez’ office
where the two met alone.6 She denied that any such meeting
ever occurred. For the reasons stated above, I found Gomez’
testimony incredible. As further evidence of the untruthful
nature of her testimony, I would note that on direct examination
she testified that at the time of the group meeting, which she
placed on April 16, she was unaware of Coronel’s union activ-
ity. However, on cross-examination, she was forced to admit
that in her affidavit provided to the Board during the investiga-
tion of this matter, she stated that the first time she heard that
Coronel was distributing union authorization cards was on
April 11, when two employees so informed her. Therefore, at
the time she met alone with Coronel in her office, she knew of
his union activity. This supports Coronel’s testimony as to the
substance of that meeting.
According to Coronel, Gomez began the conversation by
saying that she had asked several people to identify the person
who was distributing cards, and she had been told that Coronel
was the “leader” of the campaign. She asked him if he knew
that he was harming his family, and mentioned his two children
who worked at the facility. She said he was jeopardizing his
brother who also worked at Teddi. Gomez informed him that
the Employer knew that his family did not have “documents,”
which he understood to mean legal papers or being undocu-
mented. She warned him that the Employer could fire every-
body, his whole family. The undersigned has credited the tes-
timony of Coronel. Considering the events surrounding the
conversation, Coronel’s testimony has “the ring” of authentic-
ity. It is inherently plausible.
Having credited the version of events as testified to by Santi-
ago Coronel, I conclude that on April 10, the Respondent, act-

5 The Respondent presented no evidence that it had a past practice of
holding employee meetings where employee complaints were discussed
with management in an effort to resolve those problems. The Board
has held that in the absence of a past practice, solicitation of grievances
or complaints during a union organizing campaign along with a prom-
ise to remedy those complaints constitutes a violation of the Act. Capi-
tal EMI, 311 NLRB 997, 1007 (1993), and Low Kit Mining Co., 309
NLRB 501, 507 (1992).
6 As is noted above, the Respondent contended that the group meet-
ing took place approximately 1 week later. However, whether the
meeting the following day between Gomez and Coronel took place on
April 10 or 17, is of little import, as the complaint allegation is phrased
as “On about April 10,” which is certainly broad enough to encompass
the entire period in question.
ing through its supervisor, Gloria Gomez, violated the Act by
interrogating Coronel regarding his union activity, and by giv-
ing him the impression that the employees’ union activity was
under surveillance. Further, by mentioning that Coronel and
his family members who worked at Teddi did not have “docu-
ments,” Gomez was making a not very subtle threat of dis-
charge and deportation because of Coronel’s union activity.7 I
find all the above statements by Gomez, as alleged in para-
graphs 6(l), (j), and (k) of the complaint, to constitute violations
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The complaint alleged that lead person Maritza Ochoa was
an agent of the Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13)
of the Act. The Respondent denied Ochoa’s agency status.
When examining agency status, the Board applies common law
principles of agency. Agency may be established based on
either actual or apparent authority to act on behalf of an em-
ployer. The Board has held that apparent authority exists when
there has been some “manifestation” by the employer to em-
ployees that creates a reasonable basis for the employees to
believe that the employer has authorized the alleged agent to
perform the acts in question. Hausner Hard-Chrome of KY,
Inc., 326 NLRB 426, 428 (1998); Southern Bag Corp., 315
NLRB 725 (1994); and Great American Products, 312 NLRB
962, 963 (1993). Agency status is established if it is deter-
mined that under the facts of a particular case, the person al-
leged to be an agent was placed in a position by the employer
such that employees would reasonably believe that the person
in question spoke for the employer. Lemay Caring Center, 280
NLRB 60, 66 (1986). Also see Waterbed World, 286 NLRB
425, 425–427 (1987). It is unnecessary to conclude that the
agent’s actions in question were either authorized or subse-
quently ratified by the employer. Ibid.
Maritza Ochoa was a lead person in the traffic department.
As was previously noted, Larry Wilson and Teresa Rosales
were the only acknowledged supervisors in the traffic depart-
ment, where approximately 120 or 125 employees worked dur-
ing April. Wilson admitted that both he and Rosales spent the
majority of their time in the office area, not on the shop floor
with the employees. According to Wilson, he relied on the
seven lead persons, one for each section in the traffic depart-
ment, to convey work instructions to the employees. As a lead
person, Ochoa was expected to give the employees instruction
regarding the priority in which the work should be performed.
Wilson testified that he expected her to get the work out.
Ochoa was a conduit between Wilson and the employees. If
there were a problem with a machine, she would notify man-
agement. On occasion she would select employees to perform
specific job tasks. If employees ran out of material, they could
get more supplies from Ochoa. While Wilson made the deci-
sion as to which employees would work overtime, it was Ochoa
who frequently informed the employees that they had been
7 When she mentioned that Coronel and his family were without
“documents,” Gomez was impliedly threatening Coronel with immigra-
tion action. It is a violation of Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act to threaten to
report employees to the Immigration and Naturalization Service be-
cause they engaged in union activity. See Impressive Textiles, 317
NLRB 8, 13 (1995), and CKE Enterprises, 285 NLRB 975, 989 (1987).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1038
selected. Typically, Wilson selected one of the leads, primarily
Ochoa, to translate for him when addressing a Spanish-
speaking employee, which was the primary language for most
of the employees. Wilson would meet daily with each individ-
ual lead, including Ochoa, to discuss the work that he expected
the lead’s respective section to get done that day.
I conclude that Maritza Ochoa is an agent of the Respondent
within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act. As far as the
employees in the traffic department were concerned, she spoke
for management. Ana Portuguez testified that Ochoa would
sometimes assign employees specific work to perform, notify
them that they had been assigned overtime, and assist them if
they had problems with material. This testimony conforms to
that of Larry Wilson. Ochoa also testified that when she was
first hired by the Respondent, she was interviewed for the job
by Ochoa and turned in her job application to Ochoa. It is clear
that employees were accustomed to dealing with Ochoa as a
conduit of management. She represented management in her
dealings with employees on a daily basis. Ochoa’s apparent
authority came from management’s frequent use of her to
communicate their wants and desires to the employees.
Ochoa’s conduct was such that the employees would reasona-
bly believe that she spoke for the Employer. It was the Em-
ployer that created the situation by using Ochoa in such a fash-
ion as would reasonably cause employees to believe that her
comments and actions were sanctioned by management. Ac-
cordingly, she functioned as an agent under existing Board law.
Ana Portuguez testified that during the month of March,
Ochoa approached her and a group of fellow employees, and
informed them that some employee had been distributing union
cards. Allegedly, she told them that they should not do so, but
rather should protect their jobs, otherwise they would be fired.
It is alleged in the complaint that this conversation took place
on March 26. Further, Portuguez testified that on April 12, the
day she was laid off, she was alone at her sewing machine
when Ochoa approached and asked if she knew who was pass-
ing out union cards. Portuguez claimed that Ochoa told her that
the Employer was going to investigate to determine who was
distributing cards. They had a discussion about why Ochoa
was not in favor of the Union, after which Portuguez told
Ochoa that she had been given a union card by a male co-
worker. However, Ochoa denied that either of these conversa-
tions ever took place. Ochoa testified that she had never had a
conversation with Portuguez where the subject of the Union or
Portuguez’ union activity was ever discussed.
I found Ana Portuguez to be generally credible. Considering
the circumstances surrounding the events in dispute in this case,
her testimony was for the most part inherently plausible. How-
ever, I do not credit her testimony that in March she was with a
group of employees when approached by Ochoa who allegedly
threatened the employees with discharge if they supported the
Union. As was mentioned above, on cross-examination, Portu-
guez acknowledged that there was no mention of any such con-
versation in the affidavit, which she had given to the Board
agent during the investigation of this matter. While she insisted
that she had told the agent about this incident, I find it highly
unlikely that had she mentioned the incident, that the agent
would have neglected to include it in the affidavit. Rather, I am
of the view that when she testified, Portuguez was either con-
fused about dates, or was confusing this incident with a later
conversation which she had with Ochoa. In light of Ochoa’s
denial, I must conclude that there is insufficient evidence to
support this complaint allegation. However, after observing
Portuguez’ demeanor while testifying, I am of the view that any
misrepresentations on her part regarding this incident were
unintentional, likely the result of the effects of the passage on
time on her memory. In any event, I shall recommend the dis-
missal of paragraph 7(a) of the complaint.
Regarding the alleged conversation of April 12, I am of the
opinion that it occurred in substance as testified to by Portu-
guez. I find her testimony regarding this conversation inher-
ently plausible. I do not credit Ochoa’s denial that any such
conversation ever occurred. Portuguez appeared to be a sincere
individual, who testified in a quiet and reserved manner.
Ochoa, on the other hand, testified with general denials that left
the undersigned wondering what matters she had simply de-
cided not to talk about. As noted above, I concluded that
Ochoa was a conduit for the Employer and, as such, its agent.
The Board has held that an employer may have an employee’s
statements attributed to the employer, if the employee is held
out as a conduit of information, instruction, or authority from
the employer. Debber Electric, 313 NLRB 1094, 1095 fn. 6
(1994). That was precisely how Ochoa functioned in the traffic
department. Having found that Ochoa was an agent of the Re-
spondent acting within her apparent authority, I conclude that
on April 12, the Respondent, through Ochoa, interrogated Por-
tuguez regarding her union activity. Accordingly, I find that
the statements by Ochoa as alleged in paragraph 7(b) of the
complaint violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Higinio Coronel was alleged in the complaint as an agent of
the Respondent, who on April 14 threatened an employee with
discharge for supporting the Union. As noted above, there was
insufficient evidence offered to establish agency status on the
part of Higinio Coronel. Further, there was absolutely no evi-
dence offered by counsel for the General Counsel to establish
that the alleged threatening statement was ever made. Accord-
ingly, I shall recommend dismissal of paragraph 8 of the com-
plaint.
B. The 8(a)(3) Allegations
On April 12 the Respondent laid off 15 employees in the
traffic department, Ana Portuguez being one of those employ-
ees. It was the General Counsel’s contention that Portuguez
was selected for layoff because of her union activity. The Re-
spondent denied that contention, and alleged that the layoff of
Portuguez was part of a reduction-in-force necessitated by eco-
nomic factors.
It is clear that the issue before the undersigned centers
around the question of the Respondent’s motivation in laying
off Portuguez. In Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd.
662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982),
the Board announced the following causation test in all cases
alleging violations of Section 8(a)(3) or (1) turning on em-
ployer motivation. First, the General Counsel must make a
prima facie showing sufficient to support the inference that
protected conduct was a “motivating factor” in the employer’s
TEDDI OF CALIFORNIA 1039
decision. This showing must be by a preponderance of the evi-
dence. Then, upon such a showing, the burden shifts to the
employer to demonstrate that the same action would have taken
place even in the absence of the protected conduct. The
Board’s Wright Line test was approved by the United States
Supreme Court in NLRB v. Transportation Corp., 462 U.S. 393
(1983).
In the present case, I conclude that the General Counsel has
made a prima facie showing that Ana Portuguez’ protected
conduct was a motivating factor in the Respondent’s decision to
include her in a layoff of employees in the traffic department.
In Farmer Bros. Co., 303 NLRB 638, 649 (1991), enfd. 988
F.2d 120 (9th Cir. 1993), the Board held that in order to estab-
lish a prima facie case, the General Counsel must show: (1) that
the discriminatee engaged in protected activities; (2) that the
employer had knowledge of such activities; (3) that the em-
ployer’s actions were motivated by union animus; and (4) that
the employer’s conduct had the effect of encouraging or dis-
couraging membership in a labor organization.
As has been noted above, Portuguez’ union activity consisted
of distributing approximately six union authorization cards to
fellow employees. She had initially received these cards from
Santiago Coronel, and was one of only four employees who
assisted him in passing out cards. In addition to distributing
union cards, Portuguez also spoke to fellow employees at break
time in an effort to get them to support the Union. However,
the Respondent’s witnesses denied any knowledge of Portu-
guez’ union activity at the time the decision was made to lay
her off. Larry Wilson testified that he made the decision to
have a layoff in the traffic department about 1 week prior to
April 12, and in consultation with Teresa Rosales decided who
to include in that layoff. Rosales placed the decision as to who
should be laid off as having been made the day before the ac-
tual layoff. Both Wilson and Rosales claimed that at the time
they decided who should be laid off, they had no knowledge of
any union activity at Teddi, or any knowledge of any union
activity on the part of Portuguez.
I do not find the denials of any knowledge of Portuguez’ un-
ion activity by the Respondent’s witnesses to be credible. As
noted above, I found that on April 12, the day of the layoff,
lead person Maritza Ochoa interrogated Portuguez about her
union activity. They discussed who was passing out union
cards, and Ochoa wanted to know specifically who had given
Portuguez a card. Additionally, Ochoa admitted being told
something on April 12 by employee Saide Vazquez about hav-
ing to sign a card, and then going to retrieve that card for Larry
Wilson and Dennis Dunn. I find Ochoa’s testimony that she
did not read the card or notice that it was a union card to be
totally implausible. However, I do find plausible Portuguez’
testimony that on April 12, after their earlier conversation, she
observed Ochoa removing a union card from Isabell Sotelo’s
workstation, which was right next to Portuguez’ station. Portu-
guez had given this card to Sotelo some days earlier. In any
event, it is clear that by at least sometime on April 12, if not a
good deal earlier, Ochoa had become aware that Portuguez was
involved in the union organizing campaign. Ochoa was a lead
person and, I have also concluded, an agent of the Respondent.
It would be naive to assume that her knowledge of Portuguez’
union activity would not have been immediately communicated
to Ochoa’s boss, Larry Wilson.
Portuguez was not informed that she was being laid off until
approximately 4:25 p.m. on April 12, sometime after Ochoa
became aware of Portuguez’ union activity. It is certainly logi-
cal to assume that by that time, Ochoa had already informed
Wilson of that activity. While a decision to layoff employees
in the traffic department may have been made 1 week earlier, I
do not credit the testimony of Wilson and Rosales that a deci-
sion as to which specific employees to lay off had been made at
least a day prior to the date of implementation. Even assuming
a decision had already been made to lay off 14 specific tempo-
rary employees, I do not believe that Portuguez, the only full-
time employee laid off, was added to that list until after Wilson
learned of her union activity. The timing is too suspect to be-
lieve otherwise, with Portuguez’ layoff coming the same day
she was interrogated about her union activity by Ochoa.8
Regarding the question of whether the Respondent’s actions
were motivated by union animus, it was clear from the conduct
of Gloria Gomez on April 9 and 10 that the Respondent was
highly distressed to learn that a union organizing campaign was
underway. The undersigned has already concluded that the
Respondent engaged in unlawful conduct through Gomez’ ac-
tions in threatening employees with discharge and other repri-
sals because of their union activity. This unlawful conduct
included interrogation, the impression of surveillance, and
promise of benefits, all to dissuade employees from supporting
the Union. Gomez acknowledged that she was instructed by
Chief Executive Officer Stuart Weiser to talk to the employees
and find out why they were unhappy, as he had heard some
“rumors” of union organizing. In my view, the Respondent’s
animus towards the Union was clearly manifested by the con-
duct of Gomez in the 2 or 3 days prior to the layoff.
It is obvious that the Respondent’s conduct in laying off Por-
tuguez on April 12, the only full-time employee so treated,
would have had the effect of discouraging membership in the
Union. Portuguez had been active in the organizing campaign
by distributing union cards and talking in favor of the Union
with fellow employees. Her layoff would have served as a
warning to the other employees that the result of supporting the
Union was to be laid off. Unquestionably, this action would
have had a chilling effect on the employees’ exercise of Section
7 rights.
The General Counsel, having met its burden of establishing
that the Respondent’s actions were motivated, at least in part,
by antiunion considerations, the burden now shifts to the Re-
spondent to show that it would have taken the same action ab-
sent the protected conduct. Senior Citizens Coordinating
Council of Riverbay Community, 330 NLRB 1100 (2000); and

8 The Respondent never offered a written “list” or any other docu-
mentation to support the testimony of its managers that a decision was
made at least a day before the reduction-in-force, as to which specific
employees were to be laid off. It is logical to assume that such a list
would exist, and that the Respondent would have produced it had it
included the name of Ana Portuguez. The fact that no such “list” was
produced would certainly at least suggest that any such list, if it existed,
would not contain the name of Portuguez, as she was included in the
layoff only after the Respondent learned of her union activity.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1040
Regal Recycling, Inc., 329 NLRB 355 (1999). The Respondent
must persuade by a preponderance of the evidence. Peter Vi-
talie Co., 310 NLRB 865, 871 (1993). The Respondent has
failed to meet this burden.
The Respondent takes the position that it was motivated by
legitimate business considerations in laying off Ana Portuguez.
As has been noted, she was one of 15 employees laid off from
the traffic department on April 12. Dennis Dunn testified that
as a result of economic factors, the traffic department had been
reduced from approximately 125 to 140 employees in April, to
approximately 80 to 90 employees at the time of the hearing.
Although Portuguez was the only full-time employee to be laid
off from the traffic department in April, it was Dunn’s position
that neither seniority nor distinctions between temporary and
full-time employees were factors considered for layoff pur-
poses. Larry Wilson testified that Portuguez was specifically
selected for layoff because her primary duty was sewing labels,
and the need for that work had significantly declined following
the failure of Montgomery Ward.
There is no dispute that because of economic conditions the
Respondent had a reduction-in-force in the traffic department in
April. However, in the my view Portuguez would not have
been part of that layoff were it not for her union activity. It is
very significant that, with the exception of Portuguez, all the
laid off employees were classified as temporary. In my opin-
ion, the Respondent’s witnesses have failed to give a credible
explanation for the decision to include Portuguez, a full-time
employee, in the layoff. While Portuguez was primarily a label
sewer, she was also used as a packer and price installer. Rather
than lay off a full-time employee, it would seem to make more
sense to simply have Portuguez work primarily as a packer and
price installer, and only occasionally, as the need required, as a
label sewer. In reality there is a difference between a tempo-
rary employee, who is hired without benefits, and a full-time
employee, who receives company benefits. There is a clear
expectation that the full-time employee’s tenure with the Em-
ployer is more permanent than others who are classified as
temporary. This is especially true where the employee in ques-
tion is working at a satisfactory level. Teresa Rosales, a super-
visor in the traffic department, testified that she never had to
discipline or warn Portuguez for poor work performance. Un-
der those circumstances, Larry Wilson’s testimony as to why he
selected Portuguez for layoff is simply not credible.
Also, timing strongly suggests that business considerations
did not cause Portuguez’ layoff. She was laid off on the very
day that Maritza Ochoa, who I have concluded was an agent of
the Respondent, interrogated her about her union activity, and
after Ochoa obtained a union card which she presented to Wil-
son and Dunn. While Wilson and Rosales testified that the
decision as to who should be laid off had been decided prior to
April 12, the Respondent offered no documentation to support
that contention. Assuming for argument sake that their testi-
mony was accurate, surely a document must have existed list-
ing the names of the employees selected for layoff by at least
April 11, the day before the layoff was to be implemented. I
find the Respondent’s failure to offer any such document highly
suspicious. I draw an adverse inference from the Respondent’s
failure to offer any such document, and conclude that if such a
document existed, it likely did not contain the name of Ana
Portuguez. In my opinion, Portuguez’ name did not appear on
any layoff list, written or oral, until April 12, after the Respon-
dent learned of her union activity.
I find that the Respondent has failed to establish by anything
approaching a preponderance of the evidence that Portuguez
was laid off on April 12 because of economic considerations.
The General Counsel’s prima facie case has not been rebutted,
as the reasons advanced by the Respondent are pretextual. It is,
therefore, appropriate to infer that the Respondent’s true motive
was unlawful, that being because of union activity. Williams
Contracting, Inc., 309 NLRB 433 (1992); Limestone Apparel
Corp., 255 NLRB 722 (1981), enfd 705 F.2d (6th Cir. 1982);
Shattuck Denn Mining Corp. v. NLRB, 362 F.2d 466 (9th Cir.
1966). Accordingly, I find that the Respondent has violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by laying off Ana Portuguez
on April 12, as alleged in paragraph 9(a) of the complaint.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, Teddi of California, is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union, United Industrial Workers Local 24, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.9
3. By the following acts and conduct, the Respondent has
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
(a) Interrogating employees concerning their own or others’
union activities, membership, or sympathies.
(b) Impliedly promising employees unspecified benefits so
as to dissuade their support for the Union.
(c) Creating the impression among its employees that their
union activities are under surveillance.
(d) Threatening employees with discharge, deportation, or
with other adverse action in order to discourage them from
supporting the Union.
4. By the following acts and conduct, the Respondent has
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
(a) Laying off employee Ana Portuguez.
5. The above unfair labor practices affect commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. The Respondent has not committed the other violations of
law that are alleged in paragraphs 6(b) and (e), 7(a), and 8 of
the complaint.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
The Respondent having discriminatorily laid off its em-
ployee Ana Portuguez, my recommended Order requires the
Respondent to offer her immediate reinstatement to her former

9 The Respondent denied the labor organization status of the Union.
For the reasons set forth above, I found the Union to be a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of the Act. However, even assuming, for the
sake of argument, that the Union is not a labor organization, the em-
ployees involved in these proceedings were certainly engaged, at a
minimum, in protected concerted activities.
TEDDI OF CALIFORNIA 1041
position, displacing if necessary any replacement, or if her posi-
tion no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position,
without loss of seniority and other privileges. My recom-
mended Order further requires the Respondent to make Portu-
guez whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits, com-
puted on a quarterly basis from the date of her layoff to the date
the Respondent makes a proper offer of reinstatement to her,
less any net interim earnings, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth
Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as computed in New
Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
The recommended Order further requires the Respondent to
expunge from its records any reference to the layoff of Portu-
guez, and to provide her with written notice of such expunction,
and inform her that the unlawful conduct will not be used as a
basis for further personnel actions against her. Sterling Sugars,
Inc., 261 NLRB 472 (1982). Finally, the Respondent shall be
required to post a notice that assures the employees that it will
respect their rights under the Act.
As part of the requested remedy, counsel for the General
Counsel seeks to have the notice read to an assembly of the
Respondent’s employees. The Respondent opposes this “ex-
traordinary” remedy. While such unusual remedies have been
utilized in certain cases,10 in the vast majority of cases, the
Board has not found it necessary to require a reading of the
notice in order to remedy a violation of the Act. In the view of
the undersigned, the Respondent’s unlawful conduct was not so
egregious as to require the requested extraordinary remedy.
The Respondent’s unfair labor practices, although certainly
very serious, can be remedied, and the employees’ Section 7
rights protected, by means of the standard Board remedy. As I
believe the purposes of the Act can be effectuated by means of
the standard remedy, I decline to recommend the requested
remedy of reading the notice to an assembly of the Respon-
dent’s employees.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]

10 See United States Services Industries, 319 NLRB 231 (1995).