Western Heritage Mobile Homes of Arizona, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 31, 1970

187 N.L.R.B. 646 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

646 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Western Heritage Mobile Homes of Arizona , Inc., and
Mill and Cabinet Local # 2093, United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. Case
28-CA-2047
December 31, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On September 9, 1970, Trial Examiner John G.
Gregg issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter,
Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the brief, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that
Western Heritage Mobile Homes of Arizona, Inc.,
Phoenix, Arizona, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN G. GREGG, Trial Examiner This trial under Section
10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act was conducted
at Phoenix, Arizona, on May 7 and 8, 1970, pursuant to a
Complaint and Notice of Hearing dated March 31, 1970.
The complaint alleges that the Respondent by interfer-
ence, restraint, and coercion of its employees and by
discriminating in regard to terms or conditions of
employment of employees, thereby discouraging member-
ship in a labor organization, engaged in unfair labor
practices proscribed by Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) and 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
Subsequent to the trial the counsel for the General
Counsel moved the Trial Examiner to amend the record in
three points, the first of which sought the insertion of an
answer by witness Johnston to counsel's question concern-
ing the writing of a letter. The Respondent opposed the
motion with respect to point one thereof on the grounds
that there had been no answer to the question. After due
consideration, the motion is denied with respect to point
one and granted with respect to points two and three, and
the transcript is amended accordingly.
Upon the entire record in this case, from my observation
of the demeanor of the witnesses as they testified, and
careful consideration of the briefs filed by the parties, I
hereby make the following findings and conclusions:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Western Heritage Mobile Homes of Arizona, Inc., a
corporation duly organized under the existing by virtue of
the laws of the State of Arizona, hereinafter referred to as
the Respondent, is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Mill and Cabinet Local #2093, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, hereinafter referred to
as the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint alleges essentially that (a) on or about
February 11, 1970, at the Respondent's plant Bob
Johnston, a supervisor for the Respondent, indicated to the
Respondent's employees that the Respondent was main-
taining surveillance of the union activities of its employees
and otherwise gave the impression that the Respondent was
maintaining such surveillance; (b) that on or about
February 11, 1970, at the Respondent's plant, Bob
Johnston questioned employees concerning their union
activities, their signing membership cards for the Union,
and other matters relating to their union sympathies and
desires and that, by the aforesaid acts, the Respondent
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
thereby engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of
Sections 8(a)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
The complaint alleges further that on or about February
11, 1970, the Respondent discharged employees J. C. Hixon
and Lupe Vallecillo because they joined or assisted the
Union or engaged in other union activity or concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or mutual
aid or protection; that, by said acts, the Respondent
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
thereby engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of
Sections 8(a)(l) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act; and that, by
said acts, the Respondent did discriminate and is
187 NLRB No. 91
WESTERN HERITAGE MOBILE HOMES 647
discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employ-
ment and terms or conditions of employment of employees,
thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization,
and has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(3) and 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
In its duly filed answer the Respondent denied the
commission of any unfair labor practices.
J. C. Hixon testified that he was hired by the
Respondent Company on March 5, 1969, and worked in the
plumbing department from March 8, 1969 , until February
11, 1970, the date his employment terminated. Hixon
described his work as hooking up gaslines and laying sewer
lines in the new homes being built . He stated that Robert
Johnston was his immediate supervisor and that on
February 11, 1970, he had the highest seniority in the
plumbing department which comprised from 6 to 10
employees.
In describing the events leading up to his alleged
discharge, Hixon testified that he left work at 4:30 p.m. on
February 9, 1970, clocked out, and got into his car to go
home . A man was standing out at the gate and as Hixon
passed him in the car the man handed Hixon a pamphlet,
and Hixon drove off. The pamphlet, according to Hixon,
was distributed by Carpenter's Union 2093 . Hixon testified
that at the time of this incident , in the general vicinity, there
was a uniformed plant guard and some others, including a
dispatcher employed by the Respondent.
Hixon stated that on the following day, February 10,
1970, in the afternoon , the various departments of the
Respondent were advised through the plant intercom to
proceed to the lunchroom When Hixon's department was
called he went to the lunchroom where he joined
approximately 30 of the other employees of the Respon-
dent . Victor Jackson , a company representative and general
manager, was there , as were the foremen of the various
departments , including Bob Johnston , Hixon 's foreman
According to Hixon , at this meeting Jackson said, "The
Union will promise you this or promise you that, but I tell
you what they will do. They will take your $ 100 plus $10 a
month dues ." According to Hixon, he also stated , "I would
be awful disappointed , feel awful bad if you had to go to a
union when you could come to me."
Hixon testified further that he clocked out that evening at
4:40 and drove to the meeting place in Chandler where
approximately four or five employees were already
assembled . According to Hixon , two union representatives
were also present and a question and answer session ensued
concerning union benefits , including health and welfare,
vacation plans, and wages . According to Hixon, one of the
union representatives then announced that the way to get
into the Union was by signing cards and asked if there was
anyone there who would like to sign the cards. According to
Hixon, there was a brief silence and finally Hixon said,
"Well, let me break the ice; I 'll sign one." Hixon stated that
he then got up , took a card and a pen, and signed Hixon
stated that of the 20 others who were then present , all but 2
signed up ; one of the men who signed a card was Lupe
Vallecillo
Hixon continued his testimony stating that the next
morning he reported to work at 7:50, punched his timecard,
went to the plumbing department , started to get his tools,
and was ready to go to work.
Hixon testified that at this point Vallecillo and some of
the other employees came in . Bob Johnston , who was at the
side , said , "Jim, did you go to the union meeting last
night?" When Hixon responded in the affirmative,
Johnston said , "Did you sign a card?" Hixon again
responded affirmatively. According to Hixon , Johnston
then said, "Did you give them your $10 ?" to which Hixon
responded, "If I knew it was going to cost me $10, I
wouldn ' t have signed ." Hixon stated that the men then
scattered to their jobs. According to Hixon , during this
conversation , Vallecillo , who was present , stated , "I signed
one and I even got a pen to go with it."
Hixon testified that he then went to work hooking up
gaslines and laying in water lines and sewer lines in the
mobile homes . According to Hixon , around 9 o'clock that
morning Johnston came back to the department and said
he was going to take Vallecillo down to the appliance dock
and break him in on hooking up lines. According to Hixon,
Johnston said , "I think he'll make a good man there." Later
that afternoon at about 3 o'clock , after Hixon had been
called to the dock by Slocum and told that he had some
gaslines that were not right and had to be changed, Hixon
had another conversation with Johnston . Hixon told
Johnston he had to change all the gaslines. Johnston then
took Hixon into the personnel office , closed the door, and
according to Hixon stated , "We have been friends, haven't
we?" and then said , "I'm going to have to lay you off."
Hixon testified that he asked Johnston for a reason and
Johnston answered , "I can't ; you give me one." Johnston
told Hixon that he had spent 45 minutes in Birdsong's
office trying to talk him out of it . Birdsong is the vice
president of the Respondent Company.
According to Hixon , Johnston would not give him a
reason for laying him off . Johnston told Hixon to go get his
tools and then they went to the supply room where
Johnston punched out Hixon's timecard . According to
Hixon , Johnston told him , "This is the hardest thing I ever
did." After Jackson gave Hixon his check Johnston told
Hixon , "If there 's ever anything I can do for you Jim , I'll do
it. "
Hixon stated that Johnston had never complained to him
about his work , but on the contrary on several occasions
had said that his work was good . Hixon testified that he
never told anyone at Western Heritage that he was quitting
hisjob.
Based on my observation of the demeanor of the witness,
Hixon , as he testified, I credit his testimony. He was
thoroughly straightforward and responded with sincerety,
without equivocation , and with a clear absence of strain
and contrivance . I credit his version of the events and
discussions that led up to his discharge , and I credit his
denial that he quit his employment.
Lupe Vallecillo testified that he went to work for the
Respondent on January 28, 1970, and that he was laid off
on February 11, 1970. Vallecillo testified that hisjob was in
the plumbing department hooking up latrines , furnaces,
and bathtubs and that his foreman was Bob Johnston.
Vallecillo testified that when he left work on Wednesday,
February 9, he received a union pamphlet. The next day,
648 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
February 10, Vallecillo discussed the Union with J. C.
Hixon. Vallecillo stated that he asked Hixon what the
Union was all about and Hixon told him that it had to do
with wages, hospitalization, insurance , and so forth and
that if Vallecillo wanted to learn more about it he could go
to the union meeting that evening where it would be
explained. According to Vallecillo, during this conversation
Johnston came in , was picking up something nearby, and
said nothing.
According to Vallecillo, later that day company repre-
sentatives called in the different sections to a meeting and
Vallecillo went in with the plumbing department employ-
ees. Vallecillo recalled statements concerning the matter of
joining the Union and recalled that the employees were
advised that no one could force them to join the Union.
Vallecillo recalled that the man who did the speaking said
in effect that it would be a slap in the face to have the
employees pay someone to talk for them when they could
do it themselves . Vallecillo stated there were three company
representatives present at this meeting.
Vallecillo attended the union meeting that evening and he
stated that the union representatives, after a discussion of
the objectives of the Union, showed those attending union
cards which could be filled out and said that if anybody
wanted to sign up to come on up and get one of the cards.
According to Vallecillo, "J. C. Hixon was the first one to go
up. Nobody moved, so he says `I'll break the ice.' I got up
after him and then the rest of them got up."
According to Vallecillo, Vallecillo went to work on
February 11, going in a little before 8 o'clock. Vallecillo
testified that shortly before 8 o'clock a group stood in a
circle including Hixon, Johnston, Vallecillo, and others.
According to Vallecillo, Hixon was getting his tools and
Johnston asked Hixon if he had been at the union meeting.
Hixon said he had been. Johnston asked him if he had paid
his $10. Hixon said, "No, if I had known I had to pay $10, I
wouldn't have joined." According to Vallecillo, Vallecillo
then pulled out a pen and showed it and said, "I signed for
it too and got a pen besides."
According to Vallecillo, in the afternoon of that day,
sometime before 3 o'clock, Bob Johnston came to where he
was working and said he wanted to talk with him. Johnston
said , "I'm going to have to lay you off." Vallecillo asked
him why and he said there was not enough trailer sales so he
did not need Vallecillo. Johnston told Vallecillo to go
punch out. Vallecillo punched out and Johnston said, "let's
go up to the main office." While walking to the main office,
Johnston told Vallecillo that when they started hiring again,
he was going to try to get Vallecillo back on. Based on my
observation of the demeanor of the witness, Vallecillo, as he
testified, I credit his testimony. He testified in a truthful,
straightforward manner.
Richard J. Wilquet testified that he was an employee of
the Respondent, having worked for the Respondent since
November 17, 1969. He testified that he was present at the
meeting of employees on the morning of February 11, and
that at that time he did not hear Johnston make any
statement to Mr. Hixon about the Union nor did he hear
Johnston ask Hixon if he had signed a union card.
Robert M. Johnston testified that he was foreman of the
plumbing department for the Respondent Company,
having been employed by the Company since July 2, 1969.
Johnston testified that Hixon quit his job on February 11,
1970. According to Johnston, sometime between I and 4
o'clock on February 11, Hixon said to Johnston, "I quit, I
might as well get my tools and lunch bucket," to which
Johnston replied, "Well, if that's the way you feel why all
right."
Johnston stated that the first time he learned that the
Union was attempting to organize the shop was when the
letters were passed out I or 2 days before Hixon allegedly
quit. According to Johnston, Jackson, the general manager
of the Respondent, told him that the letters were being
passed out but said nothing else about the distribution of
union materials . Johnston testified that on the morning of
February 11, he had 10 men in a meeting at which he was
assigning work. Johnston assigned Hixon to the rough in
plumbing and the other employees had the same job they
had the day before. According to Johnston, nothing was
said about the Union at this meeting. Johnston denied
asking Hixon or Vallecillo if they had attended any union
meeting or signed union cards and stated that he had not
asked any employee about the Union. With respect to
Vallecillo, Johnston stated that the inspector had com-
plained about the way in which Vallecillo was putting on
the 3-inch drain lines and that Johnston had to get
Vallecillo to rectify this. According to Johnston, he told
Vallecillo about it and showed him how to correct it, but on
February I 1 he had the same problems that he had 2 days
earlier , with the lines leaking and running up hill.
According to Johnston, he kept telling Vallecillo about this
and showing him how it was done, which was very simple.
Johnston stated several times he went to where Vallecillo
was working and Vallecillo would be laying there on a
creeper and would not be doing anything. Johnston stated
that with all these problems and the inspector "crawling on
my back" and with Vallecillo loafing several times,
Johnston was just fed up with him and discharged him.
Concerning the alleged quit by Hixon on February 11,
Johnston stated in essence that, on the morning of the 11th,
he assigned Hixon to rough in plumbing. At 9 o'clock when
Johnston checked Hixon's work, the work was not
satisfactory-he was not doing it correctly. According to
Johnston, some of the lines were coming up outside the wall
instead of inside the wall. Johnston stated that it was up to
Hixon to bring those lines up through the proper places and
this was not being done correctly. Approximately an hour
later Johnston checked again and found the same
deficiency. Johnston stated that he talked to Hixon about
it, that Hixon knew how to do it because he had done it
before. Johnston stated that, at I or i-1/2 hour intervals, he
rechecked Hixon's work and each time he found it
unsatisfactory and each time Johnston discussed it with
Hixon. According to Johnston, around 2 o'clock in the
afternoon he told Hixon that if he did not straighten out
and get his work done right Johnston would have to replace
him.
According to Johnston, Hixon got "real mad" and said,
"Well, I know what you're trying to do ... you're trying to
get rid of me on account of the Union." When Johnston
reiterated that if Hixon did not do his work right he was
going to have to replace him, Hixon said, according to
WESTERN HERITAGE MOBILE HOMES 649
Johnston , "Well, I'll just quit," to which Johnston
responded , "Well, if you want to quit that's up to you."
Hixon got his tools and lunch pail, went up to the main
office, got his time and his final check, and left.
Johnston stated that at no time on February II did he
have a conversation with Birdsong, the Respondent's vice
president . Johnston stated that he said nothing to Hixon
about having any conversation with Birdsong . Johnston
denied the version given by Hixon of his conversation with
Hixon and stated that he made no statements to Hixon
about having to find a reason for letting him go. He denied
having said that he was in Birdsong ' s office 45 minutes
trying to talk him out of letting Hixon go. Johnston stated
that Hixon quit.
Concerning the letter written by Johnston to W. R. Bates
postmarked March 6 , 1970, in which Johnston wrote on
Hixon ' s behalf concerning Hixon's work qualifications,
Johnston testified that he wrote the letter at the request of
Hixon , that Hixon called him on the telephone in the
evening at home and asked Johnston to give him a letter of
recommendation so he could get a job. Hixon requested
that Johnston send the letter to W. R. Bates and gave him
the address . According to Johnston , Hixon told Johnston
that Bates was the manager of a mobile home plant and
that he wanted the letter sent to Bates' home because the
plant was not open on Saturday and he had to have the
letter by Saturday so that Hixon could go to work Monday
morning. Based on my observation of the witness,
Johnston, as he testified , I do not credit his version of the
events and conversations which preceded the discharge of
Hixon and Vallecillo . While Johnston appeared outwardly
calm as a witness , I was impressed with a lack of sincerity in
Johnston 's tone and am convinced that he was testifying
with strain and contrivance . The very substance of his
testimony concerning his alleged repeated checking and
reprimanding of Hixon on February 11, 1970, while Hixon
was engaged in a simple operation strains my credulity. I
simply do not credit his testimony.
Crediting the testimony of Hixon, as explicated above, as
to the events that transpired that day and not crediting the
version of Johnston , the record establishes the fact that
after Hixon had been asked by Slocum to change some
gaslines which "weren ' t right" Johnston took Hixon into
the personnel office and told Hixon that he had to lay him
off. When queried for a reason , Johnston would give none,
indicating essentially that he had been in Vice President
Birdsong 's office "trying to talk him out of it." Johnston
told Hixon to punch out, Hixon picked up his check and his
tools and left. Based on the record as a whole and my
credibility findings explicated hereinabove , I am convinced
and I find that Hixon did not quit his employment with the
Respondent but was discharged by Johnston
Turning to Vallecillo, I find that , on the morning of
February 11, Johnston took Vallecillo off the work that he
was performing and reassigned him to be broken in on
hooking up lines. Later that day Johnston approached
Vallecillo and told him he had to lay him off as there were
not enough trailer sales . Vallecillo punched out , was paid,
and left . I found Vallecillo to be sincere and stra ightfor-
ward as a witness , and I credit his version of the events and
discussions which took place between he and Johnston.
Analysis, Discussion , and Concluding Findings
Ample credited testimony of record establishes the basic
facts that the union activity herein commenced with the
passing out of union material by Carpenter's Union 2093 to
the employees of the Respondent as they left the plant on
February 9, 1970. This was accomplished in the general
vicinity of one of the Respondent 's uniform guards, a
dispatcher for the Respondent , and others . Hixon was one
of those who received union material as he left the plant.
The very next day, February 10, 1970, in the afternoon,
the Respondent 's management summoned the employees
by department to the lunchroom , where approximately 30
of the Respondent's employees were assembled in the
presence of key company representatives , one of whom
proceeded to address the group holding up one of the union
pamphlets which had been passed out the preceding day
and indicating essentially that he would be disappointed if
the men went to a union when they could come directly to
him.
That same evening after work Hixon and Vallecillo
attended the union meeting in Chandler, where about 20 of
the Respondent 's employees gathered to meet with union
representatives . After a discussion concerning the potential
benefits deriving from union membership , the employees
were offered cards to sign for the Union . Hixon broke the
ice by signing the first card , all the others but two then
signed . Vallecillo was among those signing.
The next day, February 11, 1970, around 8 a.m., Hixon
was questioned by his supervisor, Bob Johnston , concern-
ing his union activity of the preceding evening. This
discussion took place in the presence of a group of
employees Both Hixon and Vallecillo stated that they had
signed cards.
Having credited the testimony of Hixon and not that of
Johnston, I find that around 8 a .m. on the morning of
February 11, 1970, Foreman Johnston , in the presence of a
group of employees , questioned Hixon concerning his
union activities of the preceding evening and that the
nature of such interrogation taking place in the presence of
the other employees was such as to clearly create an
impression of surveillance by the Respondent of the union
activities of its employees. Cf. International Typographical
Union, 183 NLRB No. 60 . I find that by such action the
Respondent interfered with , restrained, and coerced its
employees in their exercise of activities protected by the Act
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In crediting
Hixon 's testimony over that of Johnston , I am not
unmindful of the testimony of Wilquet , an employee of the
Respondent , who testified that he recalled the meeting that
morning and who stated concerning the alleged questioning
by Johnston relative to union activities that "I never heard
him say a word ." I was not impressed by Wilquet, who had
difficulty recalling who was present at that meeting and
whose testimony was marked by a lack of certainty. I do
not credit Wilquet's testimony.
Turning to the discharge of Hixon , I have found that
Hixon did not quit but was discharged , and I find that the
rationale advanced by the Respondent as the basis for its
contention, that Hixon 's work on February 11, 1970, was of
such unsatisfactory nature to warrant the behavior of
Johnston in his continuing checking and reprimanding of
650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hixon for Hixon's alleged failure to perform a simple
operation in a satisfactory manner, strains my credulity.
Accordingly, it is reasonable to infer, and I do, that the
Respondent advanced this rationale as a pretext for the
purpose of concealing the true reason for the discharge.
Shattuck Denn Mining Corp. v. N.L.R B., 362 F.2d 466, 470
(C.A. 9). In the case at hand we are confronted with the
classic chronology: the established status of Hixon as a
satisfactory employee; Hixon's leading role in a developing
union organizing campaign; knowledge on the part of the
Respondent of this activity; the promptly ensuing unlawful
interrogation by Foreman Johnston; the simple admission
by Hixon that he had in fact signed a union card; followed
almost precipitously, on the same day, by an unusual
course of conduct by the foreman relative to Hixon; and
finally the discharge of Hixon. I am convinced from ample
credited testimony of record and I find that the Respondent
in fact discharged Hixon because of his union activity and
that the Respondent thereby discriminated against Hixon
in the term, tenure, and condition of his employment and
thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees
thereby engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) and 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Finally, with respect to the discharge of Vallecillo, I have
credited Vallecillo's testimony as explicated hereinabove.
The Respondent took the position with respect to the
termination of Vallecillo that Vallecillo was a probationary
employee and was terminated during the probationary
period and that it was an established past practice of the
Company. The record contains some evidence tending to
establish a practice by the Respondent of hiring and
terminating employees in a probationary period. Assuming
arguendo that such a practice had been established, the
existence of this past practice sheds very little light on the
specific matter of the discharge of Vallecillo. For even if a
justifiable or lawful reason for discharge exists, if the true
motive for the discharge is, in whole or in part,
discrimination against the employee because of activity
protected by the Act, this constitutes an unfair labor
practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act. N.L R.B. v. Coal Creek Coal Co., 204 F.2d, 579, 583
(C.A. 10).
Taking into account the fact that Vallecillo participated
in the union activity, attended the union meeting, and
signed a card and that the Respondent with knowledge
thereof promptly, as in the case of Hixon, proceeded to
discharge him, the inference is inescapable that he was
discharged because of his union activity. I was not
persuaded on this record, in keeping with my evaluation of
Johnston's credibility, that the Respondent discharged
Vallecillo for cause. While it is true that an employer may
discharge an employee for any cause or for no cause at all,
it is well settled that it may not discharge an employee
because of his activity protected by the Act
Accordingly, I find that in discharging Hixon and
Vallecillo on February 11, 1970, the Respondent committed
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, Western Heritage Mobile Homes of
Arizona, Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union, Mill and Cabinet Local #2093, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, is a
labor organization as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discharging J. C. Hixon and Lupe Vallecillo
February 11, 1970, the Respondent discriminated against
employees with respect to hire, tenure, and other terms and
conditions of employment in order to discourage member-
ship in a labor organization and did interfere with, restrain,
and coerce its employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the Act.
4 By questioning employees about their union activities
and by giving the impression of maintaining surveillance of
the union activities of its employees, all on February 11,
1970, the Respondent did interfere with, restrain, and
coerce its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act and thereby has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
of the Act, it will be recommended that Respondent cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. In view of the
flagrant nature of the unlawful acts herein a broad cease
and desist order is recommended.
It will be recommended that the Respondent offer J. C.
Hixon and Lupe Vallecillo immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make them whole for any loss of earnings
they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination
against them from the date of the unlawful discharge to the
date of reinstatement, less interim earnings, and in a
manner consistent with Board policy set out in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, to which shall be
added interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum as
perscribed by the Board in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case,
it is recommended that the Respondent, Western Heritage
Mobile Homes of Arizona, Inc., its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employ-
ees in the exercise of activities protected by the Act by
interrogation and by creating the impression of surveillance
of protected activities, or by any other manner.
(b) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against, or
WESTERN HERITAGE MOBILE HOMES
refusing to reinstate, employees in order to discourage
membership in or support of Mill and Cabinet Local
#2093, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, or any other labor organization, or because such
employees engage in concerted activities under the Act
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is
found will effectuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Offer J. C. Hixon and Lupe Vallecillo immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equiva-
lent positions and make them whole for any loss of earnings
they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination
against them in accordance with the provisions of the
section entitled "The Remedy" above.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board, or its agent, payroll and other records to facilitate
the computation of backpay.
(c) Post at its premises at Chandler, Arizona, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 28, after being duly signed by Respondent's
representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(d) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.2
i In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, recommendations, and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and
all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event
that the Board's Order is enforced by ajudgment of a United States Court
of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing
an Order of the National Labor Relations Board
2 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
651
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discharge any of our employees
because they join or engage in activities on behalf of
Local 2093 or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate or create the
impression of surveillance of union activities of our
employees nor in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
activities protected by the Act.
WE WILL offer J. C. Hixon and Lupe Vallecillo
immediate and full reinstatement to their formerjobs or
equivalent ones and pay them backpay to cover the
earnings they lost because we discharged them.
All our employees are free to become or remain or to
refrain from becoming or remaining members of Mill and
Cabinet Local #2093, United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America or any other labor organization.
WESTERN HERITAGE
MOBILE HOMES OF
ARIZONA, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE. We will notify the above-named employees if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States
of their right to full reinstatement upon application in
accordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as
amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions , may be directed to the Board 's Office, 7011
Federal Building & U.S Courthouse, 500 Gold Avenue,
S.W., P 0 Box 2146 , Albuquerque , New Mexico 87101,
Telephone 505-843-2507.