Caterair International

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 15, 1992

309 N.L.R.B. 869 (N.L.R.B. 1992)

869
309 NLRB No. 141
CATERAIR INTERNATIONAL
1 The name of the Charging Party has been changed to reflect the
new official name of the International Union.
2 On August 26, 1992, Administrative Law Judge Gerald A.
Wacknov issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in
this proceeding to a three-member panel.
3 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an admin-
istrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear prepon-
derance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incor-
rect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188
F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and
find no basis for reversing the findings.
1 The Respondent’s motion to file brief untimely is hereby denied.
The reasons advanced in support of the Respondent’s motion, name-
ly, out-of-state litigation in an unrelated proceeding involving work
stoppages and numerous unforeseen hearings in both state and Fed-
eral court, is insufficient to excuse its failure to timely submit a mo-
tion for an extension of time to file briefs in this proceeding.
2 The General Counsel’s unopposed motion to correct the tran-
script is hereby granted.
Caterair International and Chauffeurs, Sales Driv-
ers, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 572,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–
CIO.1 Cases 31–CA–18702, 31–CA–18900, 31–
CA–18919, 31–CA–18958, and 31–CA–19133
December 15, 1992
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
DEVANEY AND RAUDABAUGH
The issues presented for Board review in this case2
are whether the judge correctly found that the Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by efforts
to decertify the Union, violated Section 8(a)(5) by re-
fusing to bargain, withdrawing recognition from the
Union, and unilaterally granting a wage increase, and
violated Section 8(a)(3) by failing to reinstate unfair
labor practice strikers. The Board has considered the
decision and the record in light of the exceptions and
brief and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings,
findings,3 and conclusions and to adopt the rec-
ommended Order as modified.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent,
Caterair International, Los Angeles and Long Beach,
California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified.
Insert the following as paragraph 2(c) and reletter
the subsequent paragraphs.
‘‘(c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay
due under the terms of this Order.’’
Salvadore Sanders, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Ivan H. Rich and Teresa Shannon, Esqs. (Rich, Adams &
D’Ambrosia, P.S.C.), of Louisville, Kentucky, for the Re-
spondent.
Ralph M. Phillips, Esq. (Wohlner, Kaplan, Phillips, Vogel &
Young), of Encino, California, for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GERALD A. WACKNOV, Administrative Law Judge. Pursu-
ant to notice, a hearing in this matter was held before me
in Los Angeles, California, on February 4–7 and 25–26,
1992. The charges were filed by Chauffeurs, Sales Drivers,
Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 572, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, AFL–CIO (the Union) on various dates between
March 11 and November 13, 1991. Thereafter, the Regional
Director for Region 31 of the National Labor Relations
Board (the Board) issued various complaints and amended
complaints, and the final consolidated complaint was issued
on December 20, 1991. The complaint and notice of hearing
alleges violations by Caterair International (the Respondent)
of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act (the Act). The Respondent’s answer to the com-
plaint, duly filed, denies the commission of any unfair labor
practices.
The parties were afforded a full opportunity to be heard,
to call, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to intro-
duce relevant evidence. Since the close of the hearing, briefs
have been received from counsel for the General Counsel
and counsel for the Respondent.1
On the entire record,2 and based on my observation of the
witnesses and consideration of the General Counsel’s brief,
I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent is a Delaware corporation engaged in the
business of catering food for commercial airlines, with its
corporate offices located in Potomac, Maryland. It maintains
offices and three facilities in Los Angeles, California (the fa-
cilities involved). In the course and conduct of its California
business operations the Respondent annually purchases and
receives goods and services valued in excess of $50,000 di-
rectly from suppliers located outside the State of California.
It is admitted, and I find, that the Respondent is now, and
has been at all times material, an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
It is admitted, and I find, that the above-named Union is,
and has been at all times material, a labor organization with-
in the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
870 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3 All dates or time periods hereinafter are within 1991 unless oth-
erwise specified.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
The principle issues raised by the pleadings are whether
the Respondent solicited employees to sign a decertification
petition, and whether the extent of the Respondent’s involve-
ment with the decertification petition is sufficient to warrant
a finding that it violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
by withdrawing recognition from the Union; and whether the
strike which began on June 3, 1991, was an unfair labor
practice strike.
B. The Facts
1. Background
In 1989, the Respondent became the successor employer
to Marriott InFlite Services, a division of Marriott Corpora-
tion. The Respondent currently maintains facilities in the
United States and Canada. It employs some 3000 employees
in its western region, which includes the Los Angeles facili-
ties involved.
The labor relations and bargaining history between the
Union and Marriott is as follows: The Union was certified
as the collective-bargaining representative of Marriott’s em-
ployees on March 18, 1977. Apparently no collective-bar-
gaining agreement was entered into, and following another
representation election the Transport Workers’ Union was
certified as the employees’ collective-bargaining representa-
tive on November 9, 1979. On April 15, 1983, following an-
other election, the Transport Workers’ Union was decertified.
The Union was again certified as the employees’ collective-
bargaining representative on September 4, 1988, and there-
after, on about June 1, 1989, a collective-bargaining agree-
ment containing a union-security clause was negotiated and
entered into. An election to withdraw the authority of Mar-
riott and the Union to enter into a union-security agreement
(withdrawal of union-shop authority) was held on October
23, 1989, and the employees voted to retain the contractual
union-security provision.
The Respondent, during times material, employed 750 em-
ployees at its three facilities in the Los Angeles area. On be-
coming a successor employer to Marriott, it continued to
honor the existing collective-bargaining agreement between
Marriott and the Union, which agreement was effective by
its terms from June 1, 1989, through May 31, 1991,3 and
which covered the employees at the three Los Angeles facili-
ties (the 607 Facility, 308 Facility, and the 380 Facility) in
a single bargaining unit.
The bargaining unit specifically includes ‘‘kitchen super-
visors.’’ The Respondent has 57 managers, and managers are
the first line ‘‘supervisors’’ within the meaning of Section
2(11) of the Act. During February, when the decertification
petition was circulated, infra, were 39 managers and approxi-
mately 450 employees at the 607 Facility; 14 managers and
approximately 250 to 300 employees at the 308 Facility; and
4 managers and approximately 25 employees at the 380 Fa-
cility. The 607 Facility and the 308 Facility are located near
the Los Angeles International Airport. The much smaller 380
Facility is located in Long Beach.
On March 4, employees filed a decertification petition in
Case 31–RD–1224, supported by the signatures of 428 of the
750 unit employees, the great majority of whom are Spanish
speaking. The petition consists of 45 pages; each page con-
tains from about 1 to 45 signatures. The heading at the top
of most pages of the petition states, in both Spanish and
English, ‘‘We do not want the Union. We want an election.’’
Other pages of the petition contain the heading, in both
Spanish and English, ‘‘We the following employees of
Caterair Shoppes 607, 308 and 380 do not want the Team-
sters Local 572 to represent us anymore.’’ It appears from
the dates opposite each signature on the petition, that it was
circulated during a 1-week period, between February 22 and
27.
On March 15, the Union notified the Respondent of its in-
tent to reopen the collective-bargaining agreement for nego-
tiation. The Respondent replied by letter dated March 20,
that it declined to bargain for a new agreement, explaining
that it had a good-faith doubt of the Union’s majority support
as evidenced by the decertification petition signed by a ma-
jority of the unit employees.
As noted above, the agreement expired on May 31. The
Union commenced a strike against the Respondent on June
3. Of the 750 bargaining unit employees, some 289 employ-
ees, or 38 percent of the bargaining unit, participated in the
strike.
It is alleged that the strike was an unfair labor practice
strike in protest of the Respondent’s alleged solicitation of
signatures on the decertification petition and other threats
and unlawful acts. By letter dated October 31, the Union ad-
vised the Respondent that it had elected to end the strike. It
made an unconditional offer on behalf of the striking em-
ployees to return to work, demanding that the ‘‘temporary re-
placement workers’’ be discharged and the ‘‘regular employ-
ees, who were unfair labor practice strikers’’ be returned to
work immediately. The Respondent replied by letter dated
October 4, denying that the strike was an unfair labor prac-
tice strike and stating that, ‘‘Your requested procedure for re-
instatement of strikers is denied. No current employee will
be removed to make room for a striker.’’ Moreover, the Re-
spondent advised the Union that it had established a recall
list for strikers who were requesting reinstatement, and that
the employees would be notified as openings occurred in
their former or substantially equivalent jobs.
2. Employee recollection of notices posted by
the Respondent
Jose Ordonez has been employed since June 23, 1981. He
testified that after May 15 he saw notices posted on the wall
at the entrance to the Respondent’s cafeteria at Facility 607.
The notices were handwritten, and said that the strike was
illegal, and that any employee who participated in the strike
would be terminated. The notices were posted for approxi-
mately 2 weeks.
On cross-examination, it was pointed out that Ordonez’ af-
fidavit stated that the notice was ‘‘printed’’ and that ‘‘the
strike would be illegal and that if the employees went on
strike, they had enough replacements, and we would be ter-
minated.’’ The notice was not signed. According to Ordonez,
there were no notices that said strikers would be arrested.
Jesus Hernandez has been employed since January 30,
1977. On June 2, at Facility 607, he saw General Manager
871CATERAIR INTERNATIONAL
4 Hernandez testified that she found similarly worded papers in her
locker, although there is no evidence that they were placed there by
the Respondent.
Jose Ramirez post a typewritten notice on the wall near the
ladies’ room, next to where the payroll checks are handed
out to employees. The notice said, according to the testimony
of Hernandez, ‘‘We know that tomorrow all of the employ-
ees are going on strike. Every person going on this will be
permanently replaced.’’ This notice was in both Spanish and
English. About a week prior to this occasion, Hernandez saw
a notice on the inside of the window of the operation man-
ager’s office. All the employees would have to pass the of-
fice as they were going to their work areas. The notice said,
according to Hernandez, that ‘‘whether the strike was legal
or illegal, they could keep employees out of employment in
the Company for more than three years by appealing this in
court.’’ The notice was typewritten in both Spanish and
English.
Hernandez testified that there were no threats before the
strike that employees would be fired or arrested as a result
of going out on strike. He acknowledged that included with
his paycheck was a notice stating that ‘‘An employee who
walks out as a part of a plan or pattern of ‘quickie’ ‘intermit-
tent’ or ‘hit and run’ strikes may be lawfully fired,’’ and that
‘‘An intentional slow down of work is an unprotected activ-
ity and anyone who participates in this type of activity will
be fired.’’
Luz Hernandez has been employed since August 1980.
She worked at the 607 Facility. She saw various signs posted
at the facility throughout the month of May. Some were
handwritten and some were typewritten. Some were in the
cafeteria and some were in the hallway. The handwritten
signs said that anyone involved in the strike would be ar-
rested by the police because the strike was illegal.4 The
printed signs said that people going on strike would not be
paid, and would not be able to collect unemployment, and
that they would be replaced. She does not recall any of the
printed signs saying that employees would be arrested or
fired.
Martha Galvan has been employed since August 2, 1979.
She worked at Facility 607. She saw a notice posted near the
payroll office on June 2. The notice said that the strike that
was to take place the following day was illegal, and every-
one who went out on strike would be permanently replaced.
The sign was in Spanish. General Manager Paul Norman
posted this notice. The notice was handwritten and was not
signed. To Galvan, permanently replaced means the same as
being fired.
Isidro Barrientos has been employed since April 16, 1981.
He worked at Facility 607. He saw several managers post
notices. On the day before the strike, General Manager Jose
Ramirez posted two notices, one in the cafeteria and one
near the restroom which is near the payroll office. The signs,
which were in both Spanish and English, and which were
handwritten, said that any person who went out on strike
would be fired, and would lose all unemployment benefits
because the strike was illegal, and any person engaged in a
slowdown or trying to obstruct the normal functions of the
Company would be considered to be on strike. Signs posted
by Production Manager Paul Norman and Human Resources
Manager Carmen Nassar, said the same thing.
Mauricio Perez has been employed since August 16, 1986.
On June 2, Perez saw General Manager Jose Ramirez post
a paper under the window of the payroll office. The sign, in
green crayon, stated that any person participating in the
strike would be permanently replaced. Perez saw several
signs posted during the month of May stating that anyone
who interfered with the work of another employee would be
fired. He did not see any signs that stated that anyone who
became involved with the strike would be fired.
Perez testified that, in Spanish, permanently replaced is the
same as being fired.
Yeshewas T. Kefayelew has been employed since April
14, 1984. In May a typewritten notice was posted near the
cafeteria. The notice said that ‘‘if you guys are going to
strike you’re going to lose your job and your benefits.’’ It
also said that ‘‘the strike is illegal, or—a lot of stuff . . .
but I don’t remember the other things.’’ It did not say that
employees would be fired or arrested if they went out on
strike.
Daniel Godoy has been employed since June 24, 1980. He
testified that on one sign that he saw General Manager Jose
Ramirez post, both the words ‘‘fired’’ and ‘‘replaced’’ were
used. Another sign said that employees would be perma-
nently replaced. Another sign, written by hand, said that em-
ployees were going to be ‘‘fired automatically.’’ Another
sign said that if employees went out on strike and caused
trouble they could be arrested. However, Godoy did not see
any signs that said employees would be arrested for only
going out on strike.
Fulgencio Plascencia has been employed since November
9, 1976. In the latter part of May, she saw a notice posted
on the walls of the cafeteria and near the bathroom. The no-
tice said that ‘‘if employees went out on strike it would be
illegal,’’ and ‘‘automatically we would be terminated and re-
placed.’’ Plascencia’s affidavit, however, states that the no-
tice stated that if employees blocked the driveway or the
street they would be arrested; and that ‘‘I don’t recall if the
notice said that the strike will be illegal.’’
Miguel Gonzalez has been employed since May 1978. He
worked at the 607 Facility. He saw one notice posted during
the month of May in the hallway near the cafeteria. It was
in Spanish and English, and was in longhand. It stated that
the employees should be careful because the strike was ille-
gal and if the employees went on strike they would be fired
and replaced.
Nora Williams has been employed since March 1989. She
testified that before the strike started she saw General Man-
ager Jose Ramirez posting notices, in Spanish and English,
on the wall near the restroom and the cafeteria. Manager
Saul Monroy was assisting Ramirez. As Williams ap-
proached, Monroy told her that she had better read it because
it was for her. He was teasing her about it. The notice, which
was handwritten, said that if employees ‘‘walked off and
went on strike you were fired.’’ However, according to Wil-
liams, the notice contained both the words ‘‘fired’’ and ‘‘re-
placed.’’
Willie Land has been employed since May 5, 1977. She
worked at the 607 Facility. A few days prior to the strike
she saw a notice posted in the hallway leading to the cafe-
teria. It was typewritten. It said that if the employees went
out on strike they would be permanently replaced.
872 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Victor Saldana has been employed since May 25, 1990.
Prior to the strike he saw several managers posting notices:
General Manager Jose Ramirez, Manager Jose Castillo, and
Human Resources Director Millie Bisono. The notices were
posted throughout the department: in the hallways, the cafe-
teria, the entrance way, near the timeclock, and on the stair-
wells; it looked like a museum to him. Most of the notices
said the same things. Some were in longhand, some were
typewritten. One of them stated that the employees were
going on strike and would be permanently replaced, ‘‘which
means,’’ according to Saldana, ‘‘that we were going to be
fired.’’ The sign also apparently said that the strike would
be illegal. Thus, Saldana interpreted the sign to mean that
‘‘the strike would be illegal, and we were going to get
fired.’’ Some of the notices, according to Saldana, said ‘‘per-
manently replaced,’’ and some of them said ‘‘fired.’’ He in-
terpreted this as a threat. The exact words on the handwritten
notices were that, ‘‘any person being part of the strike would
be definitely replaced and fired.’’ On some notices both
words were used.
Daniel Godoy began working for the Respondent on June
24, 1980. He worked at the 607 Facility. He saw General
Manager Jose Ramirez putting up a notice on June 2, one
day before the strike. He also saw signs in May. One sign
said that if the employees went out on strike they would be
replaced by 300 or 400 people who had already been hired,
and that employees would be fired automatically because the
strike was illegal.
Willie Land has been employed since May 5, 1977. She
testified that she was never approached by anyone to sign the
petition, and saw no signs to the effect that employees would
be arrested, or that a strike would be illegal, or that employ-
ees would be fired if they went out on strike.
3. Respondent’s involvement with the petition; posting
and distribution of notices
Millie Bisono is regional human resources director for the
western region of the Respondent. Bisono testified that in
February, there were approximately 750 employees in the
bargaining unit. Although the contract contained union-secu-
rity and checkoff provisions, only 403 employees were hav-
ing dues deducted from their paychecks. As the expiration
date of the contract approached, various employees asked her
how to get rid of the Union. In response to these inquiries
the Respondent prepared two different information sheets,
and provided these only to employees who inquired about the
matter. Bisono provided such material to employees Bonnie
Metcalf, Glicerio Cuellar, and Xiomara Menendez.
The information sheets are printed in both Spanish and
English. One of the sheets is entitled ‘‘Facts about Union
Decertification.’’ It explains that employees may request the
Board to hold an election to decide whether to remove a
union, and that the period for filing such a petition is 90 to
60 days prior to the expiration of the union contract, which,
‘‘in this case begins March 2, 1991.’’ It advises employees
as to the form and format of the petition. Further, it warns
employees that a union will often try to delay a decertifica-
tion election by filing unfair labor practice charges, and that:
To keep the union from taking advantage of this delay
the petition may be signed by more than 50% of the
employees and a copy given to the company. This al-
lows the company to lawfully refuse to negotiate with
the union and possibly make wage and benefit changes
after the contract expires. If more that 50% of the em-
ployees sign the petition it is evidence to the NLRB
that a majority really don’t want the union.
The notice goes on to state that decertification petitions
should not be signed during worktime in work areas, and that
it is unlawful for unions to threaten or act against employees
because of their decertification activity. Further, the notice
states that although it is unlawful for management to actively
promote or sponsor the petition, ‘‘However, the company can
answer some procedural questions if asked by employees.’’
The second information sheet is entitled ‘‘Employee Ques-
tions and Suggested Answers on Decertification.’’ It is simi-
lar, although less detailed, than the aforementioned informa-
tion sheet.
Human Resources Director Bisono testified that on about
May 2, the Respondent posted a notice entitled ‘‘Union De-
certification Election,’’ in which it advised the employees
that the Union had filed a charge against the Respondent
‘‘based on alleged company involvement with the collection
of signatures for the decertification petition.’’ The notice
goes on to say that the Union will attempt to deprive the em-
ployees of their right to vote to determine whether or not
they want union representation, and will do everything in its
power to delay the election; however, the Respondent will
make every effort to expedite the process.
On May 16, the Respondent posted a notice entitled ‘‘Ex-
piration of Union Contract,’’ in which it advised the employ-
ees that after the contract expires the Respondent will con-
tinue to serve its customers even if there is outside inter-
ference by the Union. Further, if the Union asks the employ-
ees to strike, the employees have the right to say no and to
continue working, and the Respondent will take whatever ac-
tion is necessary to protect the safety of its employees at
work and continue serving its customers.
Bisono testified that on Sunday, June 2, General Manager
Jose Ramirez prepared and posted handwritten copies of a
notice at various places in Facility 607. Later that morning,
when Bisono arrived at work, she made typewritten copies
of the notice and substituted them for the handwritten copies.
This notice, which was posted inside the glass window of the
payroll office, in the cafeteria, and by the timeclocks, is as
follows:
QUESTIONS OF CONCERN
Q. What happens if we go out for one (1) day or
short periods of time, and then we come back to work?
A. An employee who walks out as part of a plan or
pattern of ‘‘quickie’’ ‘‘intermittent’’ or ‘‘hit and run’’
strikes may be lawfully fired. Such strikes are unpro-
tected and employees who walk out like that are prop-
erly discharged under the law.
Q. What happens to employees who intentionally
slow down productivity?
A. An intentional slow down of work is an unpro-
tected activity and anyone who participates in this type
of activity will be fired.
Bisono was aware of no handwritten notices stating that
employees who went on strike would be fired or arrested, or
873CATERAIR INTERNATIONAL
that any strike would be illegal. Notices of this description,
according to Bisono, were not posted by the Respondent.
Bisono testified that during the course of various company
meetings, infra, certain matters were frequently brought up,
and the Respondent prepared a question-and-answer sheet,
consisting of two pages, which responded to the questions
most frequently asked during the employee meetings. This
document, in both Spanish and English, was included with
each employee’s paycheck on May 30, several days prior to
the commencement of the anticipated strike. Also, poster-size
reproductions of the question and answer sheet were posted
in the cafeteria, in the hallway, and by the timeclocks.
The aforementioned document advises employees, inter
alia, in a question-and-answer format, that they will be pros-
ecuted and discharged if they engage in serious strike mis-
conduct; that the Union’s representations that any strike it
calls will automatically be an unfair labor practice strike is
erroneous, and that the Respondent is prepared to take this
matter to court and this process will take 2 to 3 years; that
if the final decision is that the Respondent’s actions were
lawful, the Respondent could keep the replacement workers,
and would not have to discharge them. The following ques-
tion and answer is also contained in the document:
Q. Does the Company have to shut down if the
union strikes?
A. No. Caterair has an absolute legal right to con-
tinue to operate if there is a strike or picket line. If nec-
essary, we will hire new employees to permanently re-
place those who do not cross the picket line. A replaced
striker is not entitled to return to work as long as the
replacement wants to continue working whether that’s
a year, or 10 years or forever. Many strikers have effec-
tively lost their jobs by being permanently replaced.
4. Meetings conducted by the Respondent
Jose Burgos began working for the Respondent on January
22, 1987. He attended a meeting on about May 22 at the Re-
spondent’s 607 Facility. About 20 to 25 employees were
present. Human Resources Manager Roberto Velazquez con-
ducted the meeting. Velazquez said, according to Burgos,
that strikes in California were illegal, that any person who
became involved in the strike would be permanently re-
placed, and that the replaced employees would be on a wait-
ing list until another position was available.
Mauricio Perez began working for the Respondent on Au-
gust 16, 1986. He worked at the 607 Facility. He attended
a company meeting in May. About 45 employees were in at-
tendance. Roberto Velazquez said that he called the meeting
to advise the employees that if ‘‘we go on strike, it was
going to be an illegal one, and they were going to replace
us, and the employees could be arrested.’’ Perez asked why
the Company didn’t give the employees a raise to prevent a
strike instead of spending the money to train new people to
replace the strikers. Velazquez said that he was interested in
his clients, the airlines, and not the employees, and that ev-
eryone who became involved in the strike was going to be
permanently replaced.
Nora Williams began working for the Respondent in
March 1989. She worked at Facility 607. In late May she at-
tended a company meeting. General Manager Jose Ramirez,
Human Resources Director Millie Bisono, and Labor Rela-
tions Director Roberto Velazquez were present. Velazquez
said, according to Williams, that if the employees went on
strike for 1 day they would be fired. He told them that they
could remain at work if they wanted to, and that there was
a place to pick them up if they wanted to come to work. He
said that ‘‘he had already planned for the strike and we were
already replaced,’’ and that he had been interviewing for 2
to 3 weeks. He said something about ‘‘block’’(apparently re-
ferring to blocking charges filed by the Union in order to
prevent an election), and said that if the Union takes it to
the labor Board it could take from 2 years to 5 or 10 years
to get their jobs back, and that maybe they would never get
their jobs back. Williams asked why she didn’t get a raise,
and Velazquez replied that the Union kept her from getting
a raise. Williams then left, and the meeting continued.
Victor Saldana attended two meetings about a week before
the strike. General Manager Jose Ramirez and a translator
were present. Ramirez spoke in Spanish, and his remarks
were translated from Spanish to English. Human Resource
Director Millie Bisono was at one of the meetings. Each
meeting was attended by between 15 to 20 employees. Rami-
rez said that the employees had an opportunity to vote to say
no to the Union, and asked why the employees should have
to pay $15 per month when they ‘‘could have other benefits
with those $15?’’ Saldana asked him a question regarding
salaries, and Ramirez did not answer it. Saldana left the
meeting because he was angry.
At the second meeting Ramirez said the strike was illegal.
He always said that, according to Saldana. Ramirez said that
the employees were going to be replaced, and that there
would be problems if strikers blocked deliveries or people
who wanted to work.
Millie Bisono testified that in late May, the Respondent
held employee meetings at its three locations. The purpose
of the meetings was to give the employees information re-
garding the Respondent’s rights and the employees’ rights
during a strike. The schedule for the meetings was posted
and attendance was not mandatory. The meetings lasted from
between 15 to 45 minutes, depending on the questions and
the discussion. Labor Relations Director Roberto Velazquez
conducted about 90 percent of the meetings; Bisono con-
ducted the remainder. The employees were told that they
would be permanently replaced if they went on strike, and
that the Respondent would continue to service its customers.
Employees were not told that they would be fired or termi-
nated or arrested if they went out on strike.
Roberto Velazquez is not currently employed by the Re-
spondent. He was formerly director of labor and employee
relations for the Respondent, and was headquartered in Be-
thesda, Maryland. Velazquez testified that he visited the Re-
spondent’s facilities during the last several weeks in May in
order to conduct employee meetings and convey the Re-
spondent’s position as expressed in the aforementioned post-
ed notices. He conducted between 10 and 15 meetings with
the employees. As a result of the various meetings, the Re-
spondent prepared a list of questions and answers, and this
list was distributed to each employee prior to the strike.
Velazquez testified that a question commonly asked during
the meetings was whether employees would be fired if they
went on strike. Velazquez made it a point in Spanish to dif-
ferentiate between firing an employee for causing harm to
the Company and thereby giving the Company a reason for
874 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
terminating the employee, and permanently replacing an em-
ployee who chose to strike. He gave the employees specific
examples, and said, for instance, if employee X would go on
strike, then the Respondent would hire employee Y who
would continue to work; employee X could not return until
employee Y chose to leave the Company. At no time did he
say that employees would be fired for engaging in a lawful
strike. Nor did he say that a strike would be illegal, or that
employees would be arrested in the event of a lawful eco-
nomic strike.
On cross-examination, Velazquez acknowledged that he
told employees that ‘‘anyone who went on strike would auto-
matically be replaced.’’ He explained that he told the em-
ployees that ‘‘automatically replaced’’ meant that the Re-
spondent ‘‘would be looking at replacing them by bringing
other people into work.’’
5. Alleged solicitation by company managers
Luz Davalos has worked for the Respondent since Septem-
ber 9, 1985. She worked in the accounting department at Fa-
cility 607. Davalos testified that on about February 22,
Transportation Manager Jose Castillo called her on the phone
in her office and asked if she had signed the paper to get
rid of the Union. Davalos said she did not know what he was
talking about, and Castillo said he would send someone to
talk to her.
Davalos testified that she told three other coworkers about
this conversation. They told her that they had been solicited
by employee Delores Vasquez, another accounting clerk, but
they did not sign the petition.
A half-hour after her phone conversation with Castillo,
employee Delores Vasquez came to her office. She asked
Davalos to sign the paper to get rid of the Union, and stated
that the Union was just taking money from the employees,
and that Davalos should not be a dummy. Davalos said that
she respected Vasquez’ position, but that she would not sign
the petition. The petition presented to her was a yellow sheet
of lined paper with signatures on it. Thereafter, according to
Davalos, Vasquez kept ‘‘begging’’ her all that day to sign
the petition, and said that Davalos was the only one left who
had not signed.
About 2 hours later Davalos saw Transportation Manager
Castillo in the cafeteria. He walked up to her and, in a whis-
per, asked whether someone had spoken to her about the
matter. Davalos said yes. She thanked Castillo, and said that
she was not interested in signing anything. Castillo didn’t
reply.
The following day, while Davalos was in the cafeteria dur-
ing her lunch period, she observed that Dishroom Manager
Saul Monroy was talking to three or four employees. Monroy
had his back to Davalos, but she noticed that he was holding
the same type of paper that Vasquez had shown her the day
before, and that Monroy was handing the employees a pen.
She was unable to identify them, and did not see any em-
ployee sign the petition. Later, the same employees came up
to her and asked if she knew what the paper meant. They
told her that they had refused to sign.
Jose Ordonez has worked for the Respondent since June
23, 1981. He worked at Facility 607. On about May 15, he
observed Manager Saul Monroy talking to five or six em-
ployees in the dishroom, but he was some 150 feet away and
did not know what Monroy was talking to the employees
about.
Teresa Reveco began working for the Respondent in Au-
gust 1983. She worked at the 607 Facility. On February 26,
she saw Manager Oscar Peralta talking to Israel Lopez in the
cafeteria. Six or seven employees were present. Peralta asked
Lopez to sign a paper which he said was a petition to get
the Union out. Lopez laughed at him and asked why Peralta
believed he would sign to get the Union out as Peralta was
well aware that Lopez favored the Union. Peralta smiled and
put the paper inside his jacket and left. Reveco did not see
Peralta ask other employees to sign.
Israel Lopez has worked for the Respondent since Decem-
ber 20, 1978. He worked at Facility 308. About 100 employ-
ees work at this facility. He first became aware of the decer-
tification petition on February 12 when an employee asked
him to sign it. He refused. On February 26, Assistant Man-
ager Oscar Peralta approached him in the cafeteria and said
he had a petition to get the Union out. He asked Lopez if
he wanted to sign it, and said that no one would know be-
cause it was secret, and that there would be no problem if
he didn’t want to sign it. Lopez looked at the petition, and
noticed some signatures on it. The paper was white but
didn’t have any lines on it. He refused to sign, telling Peralta
that as a shop steward and a representative of the Union he
could not sign the petition.
On the same day, Lopez observed that Assistant Manager
Peralta was having a similar conversation with Hector Her-
nandez. He heard Hernandez tell Peralta to ‘‘go fuck himself,
that he was not going to sign any type of paper.’’ Peralta
laughed.
Lopez testified that he told about 20 employees about the
aforementioned incidents; however he was able to identify
only about 5 or 6 of these individuals. When relating to them
what had occurred, he told each of the 20 employees that
Peralta had told him that there would not be a problem if
he didn’t sign the petition.
Jose Lara began working for the Respondent on June 19,
1980. On about February 22, at the 607 Facility, he observed
Manager Saul Monroy talking to various employees. He did
not recall their names. Lara testified that Monroy was asking
employees to sign a piece of white paper that was on top of
a yellow pad of paper. He was not sure how many employ-
ees he observed signing the paper ‘‘because I went to pick
up what I was going to get and left,’’ but he believed that
about three employees signed it. He was about 75 feet away
from Monroy and the other employees during this occur-
rence. That morning an employee in his department was cir-
culating a paper to get the Union out. Later that day he saw
Monroy talking to about five other employees. He identified
three of them, and testified that he saw one of these individ-
uals, whom he identified as Inez, sign the paper. He was
about 20 feet away, but was not close enough to see the sig-
natures on the paper or hear what anyone was saying.
Jose Manuel Vasquez began working for the Respondent
on May 25, 1989. He worked at Facility 607. Vasquez testi-
fied that about the end of February he was asked by Manager
Saul Monroy to sign a list. Monroy told him that ‘‘he was
taking the signatures so that the Union will stay in.’’
Vasquez noticed about 10 to 15 signatures on the list; he just
kept on working and did not sign it. Vasquez further testified
that ‘‘I don’t remember the exact words that he [Monroy]
875CATERAIR INTERNATIONAL
told me, but I think he was asking me to sign that list.’’
Vasquez knew that there was a petition being circulated to
get rid of the Union, and believed that Monroy was trying
to deceive him. He did not tell any other employees about
this incident. However, other employees told Vasquez that
Monroy approached them and asked them to sign the paper.
Daniel Godoy testified that it was very clear that manage-
ment was collecting signatures because ‘‘you could see that
some of the employees were on the side of management.’’
However, he never saw any members of management cir-
culate the petition. Rather, he saw only employees circulating
it.
Rosa Rayas began working in May 1990. She worked in
the 607 Facility. On about February 22, Manager Albert
Pacheco came up to her while she was working, and asked
if she had signed the list to get rid of the Union that was
being circulated by her coworkers. Pacheco told her that it
was a list to collect signatures to get the Union out ‘‘so that
we won’t have elections.’’ He said that if the Union did win,
the Union would charge her for back union dues for 1 year
which amounted to more than $200; and that the Union was
no good for her because it actually was a Mafia. He told her
to sign the petition because many of her coworkers had al-
ready signed and they only needed a few more signatures to
get the amount of signatures that the Government requires to
get the Union out. Rayas asked what would happen to her
if she did not sign. Pacheco replied that he had no idea, and
that those decisions were going to be made by the people up
above.
Carlos Sosa began working for the Respondent in May
1983. He worked at the 607 Facility. On February 21, he had
a conversation with Manager Saul Monroy in the dishwash-
ing area. Monroy showed him a list on a clipboard; the list
contained about nine signatures. Monroy asked him to sign
so that the employees could obtain better salaries, a cheaper
health program, and more days paid vacation. Sosa told him
to show him something in writing to assure him that he
would be getting those benefits, and Monroy told him not to
worry about it and just sign the paper. Monroy also told him
not to sign unless he wanted to, and did not indicate in any
way that Sosa’s job would be in jeopardy for not signing.
According to Sosa, Monroy made no threats or promises.
Sosa refused to sign.
Sosa observed Monroy talking to other employees in the
same department. Monroy had the clipboard with him with
the list of signatures, but Sosa did not overhear the conversa-
tions. Other employees, prior to this time, were also solicit-
ing signatures, and he saw Monroy talking to these people.
Sosa did not see any employees sign the petition.
Alfred Mercado began working on July 6, 1990. He
worked at the 607 Facility. On February 26 or 27, he was
approached by Manager Saul Monroy, who asked him if he
would sign a piece of paper. The paper was attached to a
clipboard. Monroy didn’t say what the paper was for, and
Mercado refused to sign. After that he saw Monroy talking
to three other employees. While his affidavit states, ‘‘I did
not observe Monroy speaking with other employees,’’
Mercado said this was a mistake and that he did see Monroy
talking to other employees.
Teresa Revco testified that when she went to pick up her
paycheck from the accounting department, an accounting
clerk, Irena Velo, who is a unit employee, told her that if
she would like to get her check she should sign a petition
to get the Union out. Velo showed her the petition. Revco
refused to sign, and was given her paycheck. Revco testified
that there were about 10 employees in line, and she did see
other employees sign the paper. No managers were present
in the accounting office at this time.
Victor Saldana began working for the Respondent on May
25, 1990. He worked at the 607 Facility. In late February,
Manager Saul Monroy showed him a clipboard with a paper
attached, and asked him to sign. Saldana was not able to read
what was on the paper because it was covered with another
sheet of paper, and Monroy asked Saldana if he would sign
it to get the Union out. Monroy said it would be good for
him to sign, but that he should not sign if he didn’t want
to. Monroy said, ‘‘Why do you have to pay $15 per month
and when they fire you, you’re not going to get any help?’’
Saldana refused to sign and Monroy said fine. Saldana told
six or seven other employees about this conversation.
Myrna Silva began working on May 1, 1990. She worked
at the 607 Facility. On February 25, she saw Manager Saul
Monroy talking to about 10 employees about signing a paper
that Monroy was carrying. About half the page was filled
with signatures. She heard Monroy ask employees to sign the
paper to get the Union out because the Union was stealing
from them and was of no advantage to the people. She did
not see any employees sign the petition. Monroy did not ap-
proach her.
Silva testified that she wanted to do whatever she could
to help the Union. Her affidavit states:
Approximately on 2/25 of ‘‘91 I saw Saul Monroy, the
supervisor of the Dishroom . . . he was carrying a
piece of paper that he had on top of a booklet, talking
to employees. As he was talking, he was taking notes
on that piece of paper. I did not see any employees
signing. I can hear Monroy tell the employees that the
Union was stealing from us and it was no advantage to
us to have it. I saw him talking to the employees of his
area, which are approximately 20 employees. I did not
talk to Monroy.
Irene Velo is office supervisor at the 308 Facility. She is
a unit employee. She is involved with the payroll and dis-
tribution of paychecks from the accounting office at that lo-
cation, and reports to the general manager. She testified that
there was no decertification petition in the office near the
payroll signup sheet which employees were to sign when
they picked up their paychecks; nor did she instruct any pay-
roll clerks to ask employees to sign a decertification petition
as they picked up their paychecks. She did not see any man-
agers soliciting employees to sign the petition.
Cecillia Sanchez works at the 607 Facility. Saul Monroy
was a manager in the kitchen where she works. Sanchez tes-
tified that neither Monroy nor any manager asked her to sign
a petition to get rid of the Union. In fact, she never knew
about the petition, and her five coworkers never talked to her
about it.
Inez Phipps works at the 607 Facility. Phipps testified that
Manager Saul Monroy never asked her to sign a decertifica-
tion petition. Rather, employee Delores Vasquez did ask her
to sign. Phipps did not see any managers asking employees
to sign the petition.
876 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The testimony of Sonja Montufar was substantially similar
to the foregoing testimony of Phipps. Montufar further stated
that Monroy usually carried a yellow booklet containing re-
ports and things, and would make notes on this booklet.
Transportation Manager Jose Castillo testified that he did
not ask employees to solicit signatures on the petition, and
denied that he asked Luz Davalos to sign the petition. While
he has occasion to talk to Davalos regarding work-related
matters, he knew her to be an outspoken supporter of the
Union, and did not ask her to sign the petition. Further, he
did not send Delores Vasquez to ask Luz Davalos to sign the
petition. Castillo testified that he attended various manage-
ment meetings, and was told at these meetings that managers
were not to become involved in the circulation of the peti-
tion.
Albert Pacheco is production manager at the 607 Facility.
Pacheco testified that he did not ask any employees to sign
the petition. He did not tell Rosa Rayas that management
would take reprisals against her if she didn’t sign the peti-
tion. He did recall that Rayas asked him what would happen
if there were not enough signatures on the petition, and he
replied that he didn’t know about that. Employees did ask for
his opinion about the petition, and he told them that if they
signed the petition the Union would no longer exist, and if
the Union were to go away they would no longer have to
pay union dues.
Oscar Peralta is assistant manager in the kitchen. Israel
Lopez works under his supervision. Peralta testified that in
February he asked Lopez to sign work-related papers when
he saw him in the cafeteria. Lopez refused to sign the papers,
and Peralta testified that he does not know why he did not
reprimand Lopez for refusing to sign. Peralta denied that he
carried a copy of the petition or that he asked Lopez or any
other employee to sign the petition.
Saul Monroy is manager in the dishwashing or sanitation
department. Monroy testified that in the course of his daily
work he carries various work-related papers. He does not
carry a clipboard; rather, he usually carries a legal pad. As
part of his duties, he periodically reviews and updates em-
ployees’ phone numbers in the event that he must phone
them to fill in for absent employees, and he regularly dis-
cusses matters with employees who work for him. Monroy
testified that he never carried a petition or asked employees
to sign a petition. Specifically, he denied asking Victor
Saldana, Alfredo Mercado, Carlos Sosa, Jose Vasquez,
Cecilia Sanchez, Inez Phipps, or Sonja Montufar to sign the
petition. Moreover, he did not hold meetings or speak to
groups of sanitation or dishwashing department employees
about the petition, and did not ask them to sign. He attended
the management meeting where it was explained that man-
agers were not to become involved with the petition. He did
not see any other managers asking employees to sign the pe-
tition, and did not know until the day of the strike that a
strike was imminent.
Employee Ildefonso Rivas works in the sanitation depart-
ment, also known as the dishroom. Rivas testified that he
asked his coworkers to sign the petition. He did this on his
own volition, and management did not ask him to circulate
the petition or offer any rewards. Rivas testified that neither
Manager Saul Monroy nor any other manager asked employ-
ees to sign the petition.
The testimony of employees Marina Barraza, Eduardo
Cardenas, and Xiomara Manendez is substantially similar to
the foregoing testimony of Rivas.
Robert Dominguez began working on May 5, 1990. He
worked at the 607 Facility. In March an employee by the
name of ‘‘Glacedio’’ came up to him and asked him to sign
a paper. There was no heading on the paper; it was just a
lined sheet with names on it. The work area was noisy, and
Dominguez just heard ‘‘Glacedio’’ say, ‘‘for the Union.’’
Therefore, he believed it was a paper in favor of the Union,
and he signed it. Dominguez identified his signature on the
petition, and testified that he would not have signed it if he
knew that it was a petition for decertification.
Glicerio Cuellar is communications supervisor at the 607
Facility. He is a unit employee. He testified that he solicited
employees to sign the decertification petition, and did not tell
employees that the purpose of the petition was to keep the
Union in. Some time before he commenced circulating the
petition, he asked Human Resources Director Bisono about
the matter. She was not helpful and said that ‘‘it was not
time for us to talk.’’ However, apparently on a subsequent
occasion, she did give him a paper entitled ‘‘Facts about
Union Decertification.’’
6. Alleged interrogation and threats
Jerry Hayes has been employed since August 10, 1986. He
works at the 607 Facility. A week before the strike he re-
ceived a flyer from Human Resources Manager Millie
Bisono. She told him that he should read it very carefully
because if he went out on strike he would be fired. The
paper she gave him said that he would be permanently re-
placed if he went on strike, and did not say the same thing
that Bisono told him. Hayes testified that to him ‘‘fired’’
means the same as ‘‘permanently replaced,’’ as it is a perma-
nent separation from employment.
Daniel Godoy testified that about 2 months before the
strike General Manager Jose Ramirez called him to the office
and said that he wanted to talk to him very frankly, that he
did not want to beat around the bush. He said that he learned
that Godoy was talking to some of the people about going
on strike, and that Godoy was an agitator with the employ-
ees, and was doing illegal things within the Company and
could be fired. He said he learned this from other employees.
Godoy said that was not the truth, and that, ‘‘You’re going
to have to be sure of what you’re saying to me, because I
don’t need other people to do my things, and that’s what you
do.’’
Fulgencio Plascencia was hired on November 9, 1976. He
worked at Facility 607. On May 31, he had a conversation
with Labor Relations Director Roberto Velazquez on the
loading dock. Another employee, Castulo Flores, was present
during part of the conversation. Velazquez asked Plascencia
what he thought the Union was going to do when the con-
tract expired that night at midnight. Plascencia said that if it
was necessary the employees would probably go on strike.
He asked Velazquez why the Company refused to renew the
contract. Velazquez said that they did not want the Union in
the Company anymore, and that was why they had to get the
Union out any way they could. Plascencia quoted Velazquez
as stating that, ‘‘[W]e were going to find out who had more
balls, the Company or the Union.’’
877CATERAIR INTERNATIONAL
Velazquez further stated, according to Plascencia, that the
Company was ready to wait as long as possible, no matter
how long it was; that everyone who went out on strike would
be ‘‘automatically fired’’; that if employees were going to be
walking around in front of the entrances and exits of the
parking lot they were going to be arrested by the police; that
the Company was prepared for any type of a strike, and he
was positive that they were going to be able to throw the
Union out; and that although it didn’t cost anything to give
them the benefits they wanted, the Company was not going
to give the employees anything and was not going to sign
the contract.
Plascencia acknowledged that he is known in the shop to
be a strong union supporter. His affidavit does not contain
the statement that Velazquez said the Company would get
the Union out any way it could. Plascencia further testified
that Velazquez did say that the employees would be both
‘‘terminated and replaced.’’
Castulo Flores began working for the Respondent on April
2, 1979. He worked at Facility 607. Flores testified that he
overheard part of the aforementioned conversation between
Plascencia and Velazquez on May 31. Velazquez, according
to Flores, said that if the Union was going to strike, they
would see who had more balls, the Company or the Union;
that the Company was prepared for this strike or any other
strike, and had extra money, not only for this strike, but for
more; that he was not ready to negotiate with the Union now
or ever; that he wanted the Union out; and that he was think-
ing about never negotiating with the Union.
Flores’ affidavit states that he did not overhear Velazquez
make any comment about the Company not wanting the
Union, or about kicking the Union out.
Two or three days before the strike, Roberto Velazquez
and, apparently, some other manager were talking to Flores
and another employee in the cafeteria. They asked what the
employees thought about the strike, and the employees re-
plied that they were not thinking anything about it. Velaz-
quez said that if the employees went on strike they were
going to be ‘‘completely fired’’ from the Company; that ‘‘we
were already replaced by someone else’’; that ‘‘there was no
law in our favor—or there was no law to protect us whatso-
ever . . . to think about it, to stay inside the Company and
not go on a strike because otherwise we were going to be
fired from the Company.’’ Velazquez also made reference to
another labor dispute involving replaced strikers.
Willie Land testified that on June 3, Manager Jose Castillo
asked her if she was going to join the strike. The conversa-
tion occurred as Land, who had worked for only 2 hours that
day, was then preparing to leave the premises. She said yes.
Castillo said that if she left the premises she would no longer
have a job. Land mentioned this conversation to perhaps
three other employees, including Nora Williams. It was stip-
ulated that Nora Williams would so testify that Land related
the conversation to her.
Transportation Manager Jose Castillo testified that in the
early morning of the day of the strike he was assigned to
watch Marcos Godoy because the Respondent suspected,
from the reports of other employees, that he might engage
in sabotage. He followed Godoy around, and at 4 a.m.
Godoy told employees that it was time to leave and, appar-
ently, to begin the strike. Castillo followed Godoy and other
employees outside of the building, and, on returning, he had
a conversation with another group of employees. He told
them that if they were going to leave work to join the strike,
the Company would have the right to replace them perma-
nently. He said nothing to any other employees about the
strike, and does not recollect any conversation with Willie
Land. Castillo testified that from time to time managers may
ask employees to sign work-related papers.
Labor Relations Director Roberto Velazquez recalled hav-
ing several discussions with Fulgencio Placencia in the cafe-
teria. He did not tell Placencia that the Company would have
to get rid of the Union any way it could, but did tell him
that the Company would have to continue catering the air-
lines any way it could. He also said that the decertification
petition meant that a majority of the employees did not want
the Union, and therefore the Company felt it was not obli-
gated to negotiate with the Union. He did not say that the
Company did not want to give the employees anything.
Human Resources Director Bisono testified that on June 2,
she happened to encounter employee Jerry Hayes on the
stairs. She told him that there was an impending strike, and
she gave him a copy of the aforementioned notice which she
happened to have with her at the time. She did not tell him
that he would be fired if he went out on strike.
Bisono testified that when the strike began the strikers ob-
structed individuals who were attempting to enter and leave
the premises. On June 4, the day after the strike began, the
Respondent obtained a restraining order from the Superior
Court for Los Angeles County, setting parameters regarding
the picketing and related strike activity.
7. Union meetings regarding the strike vote
Jose Ordonez attended a union meeting on May 22. Busi-
ness Agent and Organizer David Luna conducted the meet-
ing. About 50 employees were present. Luna asked if the
employees wanted to go on strike, and handed them a ballot.
The strike was called, according to Ordonez, because the
Company refused to negotiate the contract.
Isidro Barrientos attended a union meeting regarding the
strike. A show of hands was taken to see whether the em-
ployees wanted to go on strike. This was not the May 22
meeting during which the strike vote was taken. It was stated
by a union representative that the Respondent was refusing
to negotiate with the Union.
Daniel Godoy attended the strike vote meeting on May 22.
He voted by ballot. He testified that there were various rea-
sons for going on strike: the Company did not respect the
employees’ rights and wanted to get the Union out; the Com-
pany was collecting signatures from some of the people by
deceiving them and telling them that the petition was in sup-
port of the Union; and also because, when the contract ex-
pired, the Company refused to negotiate.
Godoy’s affidavit states that the strike was called because
the Company was refusing to sign a contract and give the
employees any benefits.
Miguel Gonzalez attended the union meeting on May 22
when the strike vote was taken. He testified that the employ-
ees went on strike because the Company refused to negotiate
a new contract.
Willie Land testified that the strike was in protest of the
Respondent’s refusal to renew the contract.
878 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5 I am mindful of the fact that an employee who took down one
of the notices was discharged or threatened with discharge. How-
ever, the fact that the Respondent did not want its notices removed
would not appear to inhibit a representative of the Union, such as
a steward, from copying or photographing the notice language.
8. Failure to reinstate striking employees;
wage adjustments
Vincente Carrillo began working for the Respondent in
1976. He worked at Facility 308. In November, following the
Union’s October 3 offer to return to work on behalf of the
striking employees, he was picketing outside the 308 Facility
and saw new employees entering the building. Between No-
vember 12 and 17, he observed five new employees. He was
able to obtain the names of three of them, namely, Eduardo
Avilar, Maria Quadalupe, and Adriana Fierro.
Human Resources Director Millie Bisono testified that the
policy at Facility 308 was to hire employees from employ-
ment agencies as temporary labor for entry-level positions to
fill in for absent employees or employees on vacation. The
Respondent continued this process at Facility 308 after Octo-
ber 3, the date of the Union’s offer, on behalf of the striking
employees, to return to work. The Respondent discontinued
using such temporary agencies on or about the first week in
December, after receiving a charge alleging that such con-
duct was unlawful. No temporary employees were used sub-
sequent to October 3, in Facility 607 or Facility 380.
Bisono further testified that after October 3, the Respond-
ent hired only one permanent replacement, a mechanic at Fa-
cility 308, after offering the job to qualified employees on
the recall list. There were no other permanent replacements
hired at any of the three facilities.
Bisono testified that following the expiration of the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement on May 31, it initiated a 3-month
‘‘wage pause,’’ and then, effective August 31, granted em-
ployees a salary increase of from 4 to 6 percent.
C. Analysis and Conclusions
The evidence presented by the General Counsel regarding
the content of the various notices posted by the Respondent
is confused and inconsistent, and the employees’ understand-
ing and comprehension of such notices appears to be suspect.
Further, the fact that both similar and additional information
was imparted to the employees during the course of various
meetings and through other notices and information sheets,
that the employees were placed in the position of having to
comprehend the nuances of unfamiliar concepts, and that lan-
guage translation difficulties may account for some of the
confusion, compounds the difficulty of ascertaining just what
information the notices conveyed. Finally, the record shows
that the Union has many stewards and supporters who read
the posted notices and testified to their content, and it ap-
pears that it would not have been difficult for union stewards
or other employees to copy the wording of the notices ver-
batim in order to preclude any difficulties with comprehen-
sion or interpretation.5 Accordingly, I conclude that the
record evidence is insufficient to show that the information
imparted by the notices is violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act, as alleged.
In addition, I find that the employees’ comprehension of
verbal statements by the Respondent’s representatives during
the employee meetings is, for many of the foregoing reasons,
similarly unreliable. Such testimony appears to be a compos-
ite of what the employees actually were told, what they un-
derstood, and what they interpolated both from what they
were told and from the language of the notices which they
had read. Moreover, there were many meetings, and there
was no corroboration of any employee’s testimony regarding
what transpired at any particular meeting. As such, I am un-
able to conclude that the credible and reliable evidence estab-
lishes that the Respondent’s verbal statements were violative
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, except to the extent specifically
discussed below.
I find that various managers engaged in solicitation of the
deauthorization petition. I credit the testimony of Luz
Davalos and find that Transportation Manager Jose Castillo
called her on the phone in her office, asked her if she had
signed the petition, said that he would send someone to talk
to her, and that shortly thereafter an employee presented her
with a petition for her signature. Further, Castillo followed
up his initial inquiry by asking Davalos whether someone
had spoken to her about the matter.
Regarding the solicitation of the decertification petition by
Sanitation Manager Saul Monroy, I credit the testimony of
Jose Manuel Vasquez, who testified that Monroy asked him
to sign a list ‘‘so that the Union will stay in.’’ I find, how-
ever, that Vasquez misunderstood Monroy regarding the pur-
pose of the list, and that, in fact, Monroy was requesting that
he sign the decertification petition.
I credit Carlos Sosa, who testified that Monroy approached
him in the dishwashing area with a list containing about nine
signatures, and asked him to sign it so that employees could
obtain better salaries, a cheaper health program, and more
days’ paid vacation; and that Sosa observed him talking to
other employees in the same department about the petition.
I also credit Vicor Saldana and Alfred Mercado, both of
whom testified that they were approached by Monroy to sign
the petition, and that Mercado also saw Monroy approach
other employees.
I further credit the testimony of the following employees:
Myrna Silva, who testified that she saw Monroy talking to
about 10 employees, and overheard him asking the employ-
ees to sign the paper to get the Union out; Luz Davalos, who
testified that she saw Monroy talking to 3 or 4 employees
in the cafeteria, that Monroy was holding a copy of the peti-
tion, and that he offered the employees a pen; and Jose Lara,
who testified that he observed Monroy soliciting other em-
ployees, apparently in the dishwashing area.
Regarding the solicitation of the petition by Assistant
Manager Oscar Peralta, I credit the testimony of Israel
Lopez, who testified that Peralta approached him in the cafe-
teria and asked him if he would sign the petition; and that
Peralta approached Hector Hernandez for the same purpose.
Similarly, I credit the testimony of Teresa Reveco, who ob-
served Peralta asking Israel Lopez and other employees to
sign a petition to get the Union out.
I credit the testimony of Rosa Rayas who testified that
Manager Albert Pacheco asked her to sign the petition. Fur-
ther, I find that Pacheco told her that if the Union was not
decertified she would be liable for back dues in the amount
of more than $200. It is also significant that Pacheco told her
that only a few more signatures were needed in order to get
the Union out.
879CATERAIR INTERNATIONAL
I do not credit the denials of Managers Castillo, Monroy,
Peralta, and Pacheco that they did not engage in solicitation
of the petition. I find that by such conduct in circulating and
requesting employees to sign the decertification petition, the
Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, as al-
leged. American Linen Supply Co., 297 NLRB 137 (1989),
enfd. 945 F.2d 1428 (8th Cir. 1991); Maxi City Deli, 282
NLRB 742, 745 (1987); Good N’ Fresh Foods, 287 NLRB
1231, 1236 (1988); RAI Research Corp., 257 NLRB 918,
928 (1981); Hearst Corp., 281 NLRB 764 (1986).
Having found that during the course of the unlawful solici-
tation Sanitation Manager Monroy told Carlos Sosa that em-
ployees could obtain better salaries, a cheaper health pro-
gram, and more days paid vacation if they got rid of the
Union, and Manager Albert Pacheco told Rosa Reyas that if
the Union prevailed Reyas would have to pay more than
$200 in back dues to the Union, I conclude that such state-
ments were also unlawful. Monroy’s statements to Sosa con-
stitutes a promise of economic benefit in order to induce em-
ployees to sign the petition, and are violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. See Dentech Corp., 294 NLRB 924, 937
(1989); Weather Shield Mfg., 292 NLRB 1, 2 (1988), revd.
on other grounds 890 F.2d 52 (7th Cir. 1989). Similarly, I
find that, under the circumstances, Pecheco’s statement to
Reyas constitutes an unlawful threat of economic detriment,
as there is no evidence that Pacheco’s statement was pre-
mised on his genuine opinion or belief that Rayas would be
required to pay back dues to the Union.
I credit Daniel Godoy and find that General Manager Jose
Ramirez summoned him to the office and told him that he
had learned from other employees that Godoy was talking to
some of the people about going on strike, that Godoy was
an agitator and was doing illegal things, and that he could
be fired. Jose Ramirez was not called as a witness by Re-
spondent. I find that Ramirez’ statement to Godoy constitutes
a threat of discharge for engaging in union activity, and that
it is violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. See Howard &
Roberta Feldman Corp., 265 NLRB 1579, 1580 (1983);
Sarah Neuman Nursing Home, 270 NLRB 663, 679 (1984);
Bay Area-Los Angeles Express, 275 NLRB 1063, 1080–1081
(1985).
I credit the testimony of Fulgencio Plascencia, and find
that Labor Relations Director Roberto Velazquez told him
that the Respondent did not want the Union in the Company
and intended to get the Union out any way it could. Such
a statement, viewed in light of the Respondent’s unlawful
circulation of the decertification petition, may be reasonably
understood as an unqualified declaration of the Respondent’s
intent to use unlawful means, if necessary, to rid itself of the
Union. As such, it is violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
See Cannon Industries, 291 NLRB 632, 637 (1988).
Further, I find that Velazquez did tell Plascencia that ev-
eryone who went out on strike would be ‘‘automatically
fired.’’ Thus, Velazquez admitted that he told employees
during the various employee meetings that they would be
‘‘automatically replaced,’’ and followed up this remark by
explaining what he meant. There is no credible evidence,
however, that during his one-on-one conversation with
Plascencia he proffered such a qualifying explanation.
Whether Velazquez used the work ‘‘replaced’’ or ‘‘fired’’ is
immaterial under the circumstances, as the remark, reason-
ably understood, clearly conveyed the idea that employees
could immediately consider themselves to be fired or their
positions to have been filled the instant they joined the
strike. In this regard, the evidence shows that the Respondent
did not hire employees as replacements prior to the com-
mencement of the strike.
Similarly, I credit the testimony of Castulo Flores, and
find that Velazquez told Flores and another employee that if
the employees went on strike they would be ‘‘completely
fired,’’ and that they had already been replaced.
Velazquez’ foregoing statements, under the circumstances,
are tantamount to a threat to discharge employees for engag-
ing in the act of striking, and are violative of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act. American Linen Supply Co., supra; Mars Sales
& Equipment Co., 242 NLRB 1097, 1101, 1102 (1979),
enfd. in pertinent part 626 F.2d 567, 572–573 (7th Cir.
1980).
I further credit employee Willie Land and find that Trans-
portation Manager Jose Castillo told her that if she left the
premises to go on strike she would no longer have a job. In
addition, I credit employee Jerry Hayes and find that Human
Resources Manager Millie Bisono told him that if he went
out on strike he would be fired. Such statements also are
similarly violative of the Act.
As set forth above, I have found that four managers of the
Respondent unlawfully solicited employees to sign the decer-
tification petition. The Respondent maintains that even if it
should be found that its managers did so, their interference
with the circulation of the petition was insignificant when
viewed in context, and was insufficient to taint the petition:
only a relatively small number of managers were allegedly
involved in this activity; there is no showing that any of the
employees solicited by management did, in fact, sign the pe-
tition; the employees who claim they were approached were
not at all intimidated or otherwise coerced into signing; and
all of the Respondent’s employees were quite familiar with
the election and petition process, having been involved in
many prior Board elections within the past several years.
Thus, the Respondent argues that it should not be precluded
from relying upon the petition to support its decision to with-
draw recognition from the Union.
The Respondent’s counsel, during closing argument at the
hearing, cited two cases in support of the Respondent’s posi-
tion. In Guerdon Industries, 218 NLRB 658 (1975), and
Burger Pits, Inc., 273 NLRB 1001 (1984), enfd. 785 F.2d
797 (9th Cir. 1986), the Board stated that certain unfair labor
practices committed prior to the withdrawal of recognition
may not be ‘‘of such a character as to either affect the
Union’s status, cause employee disaffection, or improperly
affect the bargaining relationship itself,’’ and that in such cir-
cumstances the withdrawal of recognition would not be
deemed to be unlawful.
Similarly, the Board has enunciated in Chicago Magne-
sium Castings, 256 NLRB 668, 674 (1981), that to warrant
the finding of an unlawful withdrawal of recognition, the un-
derlying unfair labor practices must be ‘‘sufficiently serious
. . . that they possessed an inherent tendency to . . . [con-
tribute] to the union’s loss of majority status.’’ See also
BSAF Wyandotte Corp., 276 NLRB 1576, 1577 (1985).
Contrary to the Respondent’s position, I find that that its
interference with the circulation of the petition was wide-
spread and was not isolated or numerically insignificant in
relation to the total number of unit employees. Thus, four
880 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
different managers approached numerous employees and so-
licited their signatures in work areas and in the cafeteria, and
in the presence of other employees who were in a position
to observe what was occurring. Moreover, the employees
who were approached related this fact to their coworkers. Al-
though the petition was signed by 428 employees out of a
unit of 750 employees, and while this constitutes a clear ma-
jority of the unit, it is a majority of only 53 employees or
about 7 percent of the unit complement. Further, as the Re-
spondent points out, although each of the employees who
testified in this proceeding declined to sign the petition prof-
fered by the managers, nevertheless the credible testimony of
various employees shows that some of the petition sheets cir-
culated by the managers did contain employee signatures;
and it is reasonable to assume that employees who were con-
fronted with such a petition by Respondent’s managers
would feel constrained to sign it.
Clearly, within the purview of the above-cited cases, the
Respondent’s foregoing widespread and conspicuous unfair
labor practices in directly soliciting employees to sign the
petition, with several instances of accompanying threats or
promises, constitutes unlawful conduct of such a character as
to cause employee disaffection, and has an inherent tendency
to contribute to the Union’s loss of majority status. Solicita-
tion under such circumstances interferes with employee free-
dom of choice, as the signatures obtained on the petition may
not necessarily reflect the true desires of the employees and
may therefore not be relied on by the Respondent as a basis
for withdrawing recognition. Thus, it may be presumed that
employees who signed the petition on the solicitation of
other unit employees were aware of the Respondent’s efforts
in this regard, and such knowledge is likely to have influ-
enced their decision. See Hearst Corp., supra;
Choctawhatchee Electric Cooperative, 274 NLRB 595
(1985). Accordingly, I find that by relying on the tainted de-
certification petition as the basis of its withdrawing recogni-
tion from the Union, the Respondent has violated and is vio-
lating Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. American Linen Supply Co.,
supra; Texaco, Inc., 264 NLRB 1132 (1982), enfd. 722 F.2d
1226 (5th Cir. 1984), and cases cited therein; Hearst Corp.,
supra.
Having found that the Respondent’s withdrawal of rec-
ognition was unlawful, I further find that its subsequent uni-
lateral implementation of a wage increase in September,
without bargaining with the Union, was also violative of Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) of the Act.
The strike which commenced on June 2, was, in large part,
in protest of the Respondent’s March 20 letter expressing a
good-faith doubt of the Union’s majority status, and refusal
to bargain for a new agreement. As the decertification peti-
tion on which the Respondent relied in support of its refusal
to bargain had been tainted by the Respondent’s unfair labor
practices, it is clear that the ensuing strike was an unfair
labor practice strike and the strikers were unfair labor prac-
tice strikers. See C-Line Express, 292 NLRB 638 (1989);
American Linen Supply Co., supra at 138 fn. 4. Accordingly,
the Respondent was required to immediately reinstate such
strikers, on request, to their former or substantially equiva-
lent positions of employment. Reichold Chemicals, 301
NLRB 1203 (1992); PRC Recording Co., 280 NLRB 615
(1986).
By letter dated October 3, the Union advised the Respond-
ent that the strike was ended and that the employees were
unconditionally offering to return to work on that date. In
reply, the Respondent advised the Union, on October 4, that
it was not true that the strike was an unfair labor practice
strike and, moreover, that ‘‘No current employee will be re-
moved to make room for a striker.’’ Admittedly, the Re-
spondent failed to reinstate some strikers at its 308 Facility,
and hired temporary replacements from an employment agen-
cy after October 3. While Human Resources Director Bisono
testified that no other replacements were hired at the Re-
spondent’s other facilities, nevertheless it did not so advise
the Union, and its October 4 letter indicates that it was sim-
ply unwilling to remove replacement workers in order to
make room for strikers. By failing to properly reinstate strik-
ers at its 308 Facility, the Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(3) of the Act. Moreover, if it should later be determined
in the compliance stage of this proceeding that the Respond-
ent has failed to properly reinstate other strikers at any of its
facilities, such conduct is similarly violative of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
by circulating a petition among its employees to decertify the
Union as the collective-bargaining representative of its em-
ployees in an appropriate unit, by promising economic bene-
fits and threatening economic harm, and by telling employees
that they were discharged or automatically replaced if they
went on strike.
4. The Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
by failing and refusing, on the request of the Union, to rein-
state unfair labor practice strikers to their former or substan-
tially similar positions of employment.
5. The Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act by withdrawing recognition from the Union and by
refusing to bargain with the Union regarding the terms and
conditions of a successor collective-bargaining agreement,
and by unilaterally granting a wage increase without bargain-
ing with the Union.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act, I recommend that it be re-
quired to cease and desist therefrom and from in any like or
related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of
the Act. Further, the Respondent shall be required to offer
the unfair labor practice strikers reinstatement to their former
jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equiva-
lent positions, discharging, if necessary, any replacements,
together with backpay from October 3, 1991, the date of the
Union’s request, on behalf of the striking employees, to re-
turn to work. Backpay shall be computed on a quarterly basis
as described in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950),
with interest thereon to be computed in accordance with New
Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
881CATERAIR INTERNATIONAL
6 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
7 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court
of appeals, the words in the notice reading ‘‘Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board’’ shall read ‘‘Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order
of the National Labor Relations Board.’’
Moreover, the Respondent shall be required to recognize
and bargain with the Union, on request, and to post an ap-
propriate notice, attached hereto as ‘‘Appendix.’’
It is recommended that the decertification petition in Case
31–RD–1224 be dismissed by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 31.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended6
ORDER
The Respondent, Caterair International, Los Angeles and
Long Beach, California, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Circulating petitions among its employees to decertify
the Union.
(b) Promising employees economic benefits if the Union
is decertified.
(c) Threatening employees with economic harm if they fail
to decertify the Union.
(d) Threatening employees with discharge or automatic re-
placement if they support the Union or elect to go on strike.
(e) Utilizing a decertification petition circulated by the Re-
spondent as a basis for refusing to bargain with the Union
as the collective-bargaining representative of its employees.
(f) Failing and refusing to bargain with the Union as the
collective-bargaining representative of its employees.
(g) Failing and refusing to reinstate unfair labor practice
strikers on their request to return to work.
(h) Unilaterally granting a wage increase without bargain-
ing with the Union.
(i) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaran-
teed to them under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Recognize and bargain, on request, with the Union as
the collective-bargaining representative of its employees in
the following unit:
INCLUDED: All food and equipment handlers and
helpers, chefs, dispatcher, coordinators, executive chefs,
lead cooks, cooks, assistant cooks, lead bakers, bakers,
lead station attendant, station attendant, kitchen super-
visors, liquor room, lead sanitation, sanitation-utility,
lead storekeeper, storekeepers, plant clerical, clerk dis-
patchers, maintenance, clerk, flight assemblers, auto
maintenance, and bank attendants employed by the Em-
ployer at Shop 607, 6901 West Imperial Highway, Los
Angeles, California; Shop 308, 7255 World Way West,
Los Angeles, California; and Shop 380, 3250 E. 29th
Street, Long Beach, California.
EXCLUDED: Office clerical employees, professional
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
(b) On request, reinstate unfair labor practice strikers and
pay them backpay, with interest, in the manner proscribed in
the remedy section of this decision.
(c) Post at the Respondent’s Los Angeles and Long Beach,
California facilities copies of the attached notice marked
‘‘Appendix.’’7 Copies of the notice, in Spanish and English,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 31,
after being duly signed by the Respondent’s representative,
shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt
and maintained by the Respondent for 60 consecutive days
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps 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 National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us
to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protection
To choose not to engage in any of these protected
concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT circulate petitions among our employees to
decertify the Union as the collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the employees.
WE WILL NOT promise employees economic benefits if
they decertify the Union as their collective-bargaining rep-
resentative.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with economic harm if
they fail to decertify the Union, or with discharge or auto-
matic replacement if they elect to engage in union activity
or in a strike against the Company.
WE WILL NOT refuse to reinstate unfair labor practice
strikers to their former or substantially equivalent positions
of employment.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally increase wages without bargain-
ing with the Union.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain in good faith with Chauf-
feurs, Sales Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 572,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
882 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
housemen and Helpers of America, AFL–CIO as the exclu-
sive representative of the employees in the following unit:
INCLUDED: All food and equipment handlers and
helpers, chefs, dispatchers, coordinators, executive
chefs, lead cooks, cooks, assistant cooks, lead bakers,
bakers, lead station attendant, station attendant, kitchen
supervisors liquor room, lead sanitation, sanitation-util-
ity, lead storekeeper, storekeepers, plant clerical, clerk
dispatchers, maintenance, clerk, flight assemblers, auto
maintenance, and bank attendants employed by the Em-
ployer at Shop 607, 6901 West Imperial Highway, Los
Angeles, California; Shop 308, 7255 World Way West,
Los Angeles, California; and Shop 380, 3250 E. 29th
Street, Long Beach, California.
EXCLUDED: Office clerical employees, professional
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
WE WILL, on request, bargain collectively with Chauffeurs,
Sales Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 572, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, AFL–CIO as the exclusive rep-
resentative of all employees in the appropriate unit described
above with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment and, if an understanding
is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agree-
ment.
WE WILL, on request, reinstate unfair labor practice strik-
ers to their former or substantially equivalent positions of
employment, discharging, if necessary, any replacements, and
pay them backpay, with interest, for the wages they have lost
as a result of our failure to timely reinstate them after Octo-
ber 3, 1991.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
CATERAIR INTERNATIONAL