Fritz Companies

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 21, 2000

330 N.L.R.B. 1296 (N.L.R.B. 2000)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1296
Fritz Companies, Inc. and Fritz Air Freight (a/k/a
Intertrans Corporation/Stair Cargo Services,
Inc.) and Freight Drivers, Warehousemen and
Helpers Local Union No. 390, affiliated with In-
ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–
CIO and Juan C. Valdes and Israel Ramos and
Lazaro Aleman and Aldo Gomis and Fernando
Roca. Cases 12–CA–17713, 12–CA–17778 12–
CA–17799 12–CA–18074, 12–CA–18232, 12–CA–
18453–1, 12–CA–18453–2, 12–CA–18453–3, and
12–CA–18453–5
April 21, 2000
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FOX, LIEBMAN, AND HURTGEN
On February 2, 1998, Administrative Law Judge Par-
gen Robertson issued the attached decision. The Respon-
dent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the
General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a supporting
brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions, cross-exceptions and briefs,
and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1
and conclusions2 consistent with the discussions below,
and to adopt the recommended Order as modified.3
1. The judge found that on October 22, 1996, the Re-
spondent engaged in discrimination in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) and (1), and in unilateral changes in em-
ployment conditions in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1), when it laid off six prounion warehouse employees
who had previously been truckdrivers for the Respon-
dent. The Respondent excepts, inter alia, to the 8(a)(5)
and (1) finding concerning these layoffs. It contends that
the judge mistakenly found that the Respondent failed to
provide notice and an opportunity to bargain regarding
the layoffs. The Respondent argues that the Union in fact
received notice and an opportunity to bargain on October
21, the day before the layoffs. The Respondent asserts
that at this meeting the Union did not reply to the Re-
spondent’s layoff proposal in any significant way, but
merely expressed its disagreement and asked that it be
notified of the date of the layoffs. The Respondent sug-
gests, therefore, that the Union acquiesced or otherwise
waived its bargaining rights in the matter, and that ac-
cordingly the Respondent was free to implement the lay-
offs lawfully on October 22.

1 The Respondent and the General Counsel have excepted to some of
the judge’s credibility findings. The Board’s established policy is not to
overrule an administrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the
clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they
are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd.
188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record
and find no basis for reversing the findings.
2 No exceptions were filed to the judge’s failure to address the com-
plaint allegation that the Respondent refused to bargain over the effects
of its decision to transfer bargaining unit work to a different location.
3 We will modify the Order to conform with the judge’s recom-
mended remedy, and to provide the conditional notice mailing as re-
quired in Excel Container, Inc., 325 NLRB 17 (1997).
We find no merit in this exception. The Respondent
ignores the testimony of discriminatee Lazaro Aleman,
which was credited by the judge concerning this incident.
This, together with other evidence consistent with the
credited testimony, provides a clear picture of the Octo-
ber 21 session, showing that the Union was presented
with a fait accompli.
Aleman testified that there was very little discussion of
the layoff issue at this meeting. The Respondent simply
stated that the economic situation was poor and that lay-
offs in the warehouse were required. The Respondent
further stated that the six former drivers would be laid off
because they were the least senior warehouse employees
according to “the list.” After a very brief discussion of
the matter, the Respondent specified the names of those
to be laid off. Although it is apparent that the Union
made clear its disagreement, there was no further discus-
sion. The layoffs were implemented the next day.
Discriminatee Aldo Gomis, who was also at the meet-
ing, corroborated Aleman’s testimony. To further clarify
the circumstances, we note that the testimony of David
Curtis, the Respondent’s attorney and negotiator, the
testimony of the Respondent’s human resources man-
ager, Luis Puebla, and the Respondent’s factual represen-
tations in its exceptions brief, establish that the Respon-
dent explained to the Union on October 21 that its basis
for calculating the six employees’ seniority was the par-
ties’ “letter of understanding” of July 21, 1995. That
agreement permitted the Respondent’s truckdrivers to
continue working as warehouse employees following the
termination of the Respondent’s trucking operation for
business reasons in 1995. In context, it is apparent that
this previous agreement was “the list” Aleman referred to
in his testimony.
It is well established that upon appropriate notice of
the employer’s intention to change employment condi-
tions, the union must timely request that the employer
bargain over the matter. “However, if the notice is too
short a time before implementation or because the em-
ployer has no intention of changing its mind, then the
notice is nothing more than informing the union of a fait
accompli.” Intersystems Design Corp., 278 NLRB 759
(1986), quoting Ciba-Geigy Pharmaceuticals Division,
264 NLRB 1013, 1017 (1982), enfd. 722 F.2d 1120 (3d
Cir. 1983).
The record establishes that what occurred at the Octo-
ber 21 meeting was the Respondent’s announcement that
it had decided that layoffs would be carried out for eco-
nomic reasons, and that six employees had been chosen
pursuant to what the Respondent identified as the layoff-
seniority provisions of the July 21, 1995 letter of under-
standing. This was not a bargaining proposal, but a
330 NLRB No. 183
FRITZ COS. 1297
statement of what the Respondent considered itself con-
tractually permitted to do by prior agreement. There is no
indication that the Respondent intended to entertain
counterproposals from the Union, or that it was other-
wise open to a change of mind concerning an issue
which, in its view, the parties had already resolved. Thus,
the Respondent informed the Union of a fait accompli.
That the Union did not respond other than to disagree is
understandable in these circumstances—it would have
been a futile gesture.4 In these circumstances, we find
that the Union was not provided with timely notice and
an opportunity to bargain regarding the layoff of these
six employees.
We agree with the judge that the July 21, 1995 letter of
understanding and the circumstances of its negotiation
provide no basis in fact to justify the layoffs. That
agreement does not address layoff procedures or the ap-
plication of seniority as it may relate to layoffs in the
warehouse. In light of the Respondent’s presentation to
the Union of a fait accompli on October 21 and the ab-
sence of any justification for the unilateral implementa-
tion of the layoffs, contractual or otherwise, we agree
that the Respondent unilaterally laid off the six employ-
ees in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1).
2. The Respondent excepts to the judge’s finding that
it violated Section 8(a)(1) when its security agent showed
discriminatee Aldo Gomis a security report relating that a
supervisor had been overheard the day before encourag-
ing an employee to attack Gomis physically. The Re-
spondent argues that the judge did not establish a factual
context indicating that this incident was related to
Gomis’ union activity. However, we note that the judge
found elsewhere in his decision that the Respondent,
through its security agents, unlawfully increased its sur-
veillance of Gomis because of his union activities, be-
ginning in December 1995 and ending when he was
unlawfully discharged in October 1996. The “security
report” incident occurred in January 1996, during this
period of enhanced, unlawful surveillance of Gomis.
Given this context, we find that the recording of the re-
port threatening physical harm and its presentation to
Gomis by the Respondent’s security agent were related
to his protected activity. Accordingly, we reject the Re-
spondent’s exception as lacking in merit, and we affirm
the judge’s finding of a violation.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent, Fritz

4 Given the discriminatory nature of the six layoffs, fully discussed
in the judge’s decision, it is inferable that the situation appeared futile
to the Union for the additional reason that the layoffs seemed unlaw-
fully motivated, and not amenable to good-faith bargaining. In this
vein, we note that the Union filed unfair labor practice charges alleging
that the Respondent’s action violated Sec. 8(a)(3) on October 28, 6
days after the layoffs were effected.
Companies, Inc. and Fritz Air Freight, Miami, Florida,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the Order as modified.
1. Insert the following as paragraph 2(b) and reletter
the subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
“(b) Make Juan Valdes, Fernando Roca, Jesus del
Valle, Lazaro Aleman, Israel Ramos, Rafael Soto, and
Aldo Gomis whole for any loss of earnings and other
benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against
them, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the
decision.”
2. In the relettered paragraph 2(f), substitute the date
“January 20, 1996” for “March 7, 1996.”
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the admin-
istrative law judge.
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 solicit our employees to physically harm
an employee because of his support for the Union,
Freight Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Un-
ion No. 390, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, AFL–CIO.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees
about their union activity.
WE WILL NOT solicit our employees to sign a petition to
decertify the Union.
WE WILL NOT promise any employee a supervisory po-
sition in exchange for that employee’s signing a petition
to decertify the Union.
WE WILL NOT promise any employee that we will sup-
port him or her if that employee signs a petition to decer-
tify the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that we will shut
our doors if the employees do not get rid of the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that union repre-
sentation on behalf of employees is futile.
WE WILL NOT promise to deal with employees regard-
ing grievances without union representation.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1298
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that they will
miss out on opportunities and not gain benefits and be-
come full time, because of the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that we can not
offer improved employee benefits because of the Union
and the negotiation process.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that we will not
sign a collective-bargaining contract with the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that a union rally
could cause the Company to lose business.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that they will
never get a collective-bargaining agreement.
WE WILL NOT increase surveillance and videotape our
employees’ union activities.
WE WILL NOT warn, decrease the weekly hours of, or
terminate our employees because of their union activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally terminate employees in the
following appropriate bargaining unit without lawfully
notifying and bargaining with the Union:

All full time cargo handlers/warehousemen, drivers,
dispatchers, palletizers, carpentry employees, receivers
and forklift drivers employed by us at our 9020 N.W.
12th Street, Miami, Florida facility; but excluding all
other employees, office clerical employees, managerial
employees, confidential employees, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’
Order, offer Juan Valdes, Fernando Roca, Jesus del
Valle, Lazaro Aleman, Israel Ramos, Rafael Soto, and
Aldo Gomis full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if
those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any
other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make Juan Valdes, Fernando Roca, Jesus del
Valle, Lazaro Aleman, Israel Ramos, Rafael Soto, and
Aldo Gomis whole for any loss of earnings and other
benefits resulting from their discharges and Valdes’ re-
duction in work hours, less any net interim earnings, plus
interest.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, remove from our files any reference to the unlaw-
ful warning issued to Aldo Gomis, the unlawful reduc-
tion in hours affecting Juan Valdes, and the unlawful
discharges of Fernando Roca, Jesus del Valle, Lazaro
Aleman, Israel Ramos, Rafael Soto, and Gomis, and WE
WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify each of them in
writing that this has been done and that none of these
unlawful actions will be used against them in any way.
WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Union and put in
writing and sign any agreement reached concerning a
decision to terminate unit employees in the bargaining
unit set forth above.
FRITZ COMPANIES, INC. AND FRITZ AIR
FREIGHT

Shelley Bryant-Plass, Esq., for the General Counsel.
David M. Curtis, Esq. and Patrick Richter, Esq., of Dallas,
Texas, for the Respondent.
Scott Weingarden, Esq., of Coral Gables, Florida, for the
Charging Party.
DECISION
PARGEN ROBERTSON, Administrative law Judge. This hearing
was held on from September 8 through 10, and September 29
and 30, 1997, in Miami, Florida. A consolidated complaint
issued on June 26, 1997. The complaint was amended at the
hearing on September 8, 1997.
All parties were represented and afforded full opportunity to
be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to in-
troduce evidence. Respondent and the General Counsel filed
briefs. On consideration of the entire record and the briefs, I
make the following findings
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent admitted at the hearing that Fritz, a Delaware
corporation, has been engaged in the business of freight for-
warding at its warehouse facility located at 2970 N.W. 75th
Avenue, Miami, Florida (building 1), and thereafter at 10000
N.W. 25th Street, Miami, Florida (new facility), and that Fritz
Air, also known as Intertrans Corporation/Stair Cargo Services,
Inc., a Texas corporation, has been engaged in the pickup, stor-
age, and delivery of freight at its principal office and place of
business at 9020 N.W. 12th Street, Miami, Florida (building 2),
and thereafter at the new facility. During the past 12 months
Fritz and Fritz Air, while engaged in their respective business
operations each sold and shipped from its respective Florida
facilities goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points
outside Florida; and each purchased and received at its respec-
tive Florida facilities goods valued in excess of $50,000 di-
rectly from points outside Florida. At all material times, Fritz
and Fritz Air have been employers engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
Respondent admitted at the hearing that at all material times
Fritz and Fritz Air have been affiliated business enterprises
with common officers, ownership, directors, management, and
supervision; have shared common premises and facilities; have
interchanged personnel with each other; have held themselves
out to the public as a single-integrated business enterprise and
have codetermined the establishment of work rules, working
hours, and employee compensation by which employees would
operate. Respondent admitted that based on the operations de-
scribed above, Fritz and Fritz Air constitute a single-integrated
business enterprise and a single employer within the meaning
of the Act.
Respondent admitted at the hearing that at all material times
Fritz and Fritz Air have been parties to a business relationship
which provides that Fritz Air is the agent for Fritz in connection
with the business of forwarding freight received by Fritz in
Miami, Florida; and Fritz and Fritz Air have been joint employ-
ers of the employees employed at building 2.
FRITZ COS. 1299
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION
Respondent admitted that the Union has been a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. SUPERVISORY ALLEGATIONS
Respondent admitted at the hearing that all the alleged su-
pervisors are supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11)
but Respondent denied that five of those supervisors were Re-
spondent’s agents. Those five are Roberto Grandal, John Man-
dri, Manny Sanchez, Victor Suzrez, and Fernando Alizo. The
admitted supervisors and agents are Lynn Fritz, Frank Gumina,
and Luis Puebla.
IV. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE ALLEGATIONS
On June 13, 1994, the Union was certified as bargaining rep-
resentative of the following employees of Respondent:

All full time cargo handlers/warehousemen, drivers, dispatch-
ers, palletizers, carpentry employees, receivers and forklift
drivers employed by Respondents at its 9020 N.W. 12th
Street, Miami, Florida facility; but excluding all other em-
ployees, office clerical employees, managerial employees,
confidential employees, guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.

The parties engaged in collective-bargaining negotiations.
However, they have failed to reach final agreement.
A decertification petition was filed on February 28, 1996.
The General Counsel alleged that Respondent engaged in ac-
tivity in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and(5) of the Act.
A. Section 8(a)(1)
1. John Mandri
Respondent admitted that John Mandri was assistant man-
ager of Fritz Air at material times and was a supervisor.
Aldo Gomis testified that he was shown a copy of an occur-
rence report prepared by security guard Uvelio Nunez. Gomis
was shown the report on January 20, 1996, the day after it was
prepared by Nunez. Nunez reported that he overheard a conver-
sation between John Mandri and a temporary warehouse em-
ployee on January 19, 1996. Nunez quoted Mandri’s comments
in Spanish. Mandri’s comments were translated at the hearing
as follows:

Aldo is a person with two faces, and none of the two faces is a
good one. What we have to do, all the employees of the ware-
house, is to grab him outside at the parking lot and give him a
good set of punches. That’s the only thing that I could say and
do.

As shown herein, Aldo Gomis was one of the most visible
union supporters.
Conclusions
Credibility
Throughout the record some of the witnesses did not speak
English fluently if at all. A translator was used on those occa-
sions. As to this particular allegation, there was a translation on
the record of a report that included some comments in Spanish.
The evidence regarding the comments by John Mandri on
January 19, 1996, are not in dispute. I credit the testimony of
Aldo Gomis. Gomis demonstrated good demeanor and the full
record supported the bulk of his testimony.
Findings
Respondent admitted that at all material times it has main-
tained a contract with Burns International Security Services for
security personnel who perform services at buildings 1 and 2
and that the Burns’ security personnel have been acting on
behalf of Respondent as its agents.
The report shown to employee Aldo Gomis was prepared by
an admitted agent, security guard Uvelio Nunez. According to
that report admitted Supervisor John Mandri, suggested to an
employee named Saul that the employees should physically
harm Gomis. Gomis was a well-known union supporter.
Respondent argued that the record failed to reveal the con-
text in which the comments were made by John Mandri. How-
ever, the record does show that the report was shown to Gomis
by a security guard. The security guards were agents of Re-
spondent. It appears from the face of the report that Mandri was
soliciting an employee to engage in physically harming Gomis.
Under the circumstances I am convinced that Aldo Gomis
was physically threatened by an agent of Respondent because
of his union activity. I find that the actions of Uvelio Nunez and
John Mandri tend to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 and
constitutes violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. M. K. Morse
Co., 302 NLRB 924 (1991).
2. Roberto Grandal
Respondent admitted that Grandal was an assistant manager
of Fritz Air at material times and was a supervisor even though
it denied Grandal was its agent.
Kenny Perez worked for Fritz Companies in the warehouse
beginning in 1991. Perez was an open union supporter from
1994. Perez was called in to Roberto Grandal’s office. After
having his recollection refreshed Perez testified that he was
called into Grandal’s office before his schedule was changed in
April 1996. Grandal asked if Perez had a problem with what
was going on with the Company and the Union. Perez ex-
plained that he was having money problems and he could not
take this any more. He said that he was going to be leaving the
Company.
Grandal asked if Perez would help him. He told Perez that he
needed him to sign this petition stating that he wanted to go for
another reelection to get the Union out of the Company. Gran-
dal showed him the petition which stated in English and Span-
ish that the undersigned employees no longer wish to be repre-
sented by the Union. Perez refused to sign the petition.
Grandal told Perez that if he was leaving why didn’t he help
Grandal by signing the petition. Grandal told Perez that, “that
position you’ve been looking for as a supervisor can be granted
to you if you sign the petition, and if you had any problems
with the Union, or any employee that worked—that was with
the Union in the company, that they would back me up a hun-
dred percent, that the company would back me up a hundred
percent.” Grandal said the Company would not last another
year if they kept on with the Union and that Lynn Fritz would
not keep the Company running in Miami and would shut the
doors down and forget about everything.
After his meeting with Grandal, Perez told Aldo Gomis
about the meeting. He and Gomis went to Luis Puebla and told
Puebla of the occurrence. Puebla denied knowing about what
Grandal did but agreed that he would speak with Grandal.
Eduardo Felipe became a supervisor in September 1995.
Felipe was cautioned by Roberto Grandal in the presence of
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1300
Victor Suarez. Grandal told Felipe that Felipe was giving the
“Union guys so much overtime.” Grandal said, “[W]e can’t
have it.” Felipe was told to separate Aldo Gomis and Ben-
gochea in order to prevent their having access to talk to em-
ployees.
Felipe testified that Grandal told him to separate employees
if he saw more than two union supporters together.
Eduardo Felipe admitted that he threatened Marlon Solor-
zano that Solorzano was going to be fired if he did not support
decertification of the Union. Solorzano asked to be placed on
the 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. shift in exchange for signing the decertifi-
cation petition and Felipe agreed. Felipe checked with Luis
Puebla and Puebla said there was no problem with giving
Solorzano the shift times requested.
After the Union’s 1994 certification Aldo Gomis was se-
lected to represent the employees in the plant. Gomis testified
that employee Jesus del Valle asked him to speak with Luis
Puebla regarding an April 26, 1996 change in work schedule.
Gomis along with del Valle, Rueben Gonzalez, and Larry Ale-
man met with Puebla, Tom Magill, Roberto Grandal, and
Ramon Suarez. Gomis stated that he should have been con-
tacted before the change in work schedule. Grandal told Gomis
that he was nothing to del Valle to want to represent del Valle
and that was a company and supervisory matter. Grandal said
that Gomis was, “no one, you have to speak for yourself.” He
said that the work schedule change was not Gomis’ problem.
Juan Valdes was a temporary employee assigned to Respon-
dent. In 1996 before Respondent transferred him to the Gate-
way department on April 29, Roberto Grandal and employee
Carlos Bello approached him. Bello asked if the Company gave
Valdes a support vote who would he vote for. Valdes said that
he would not vote for the Company because they had not given
him any benefits. Grandal told Valdes to think about that be-
cause Valdes had a family and could miss out on an opportunity
and that Valdes was not a full-time employee because they
were having battles over the Union. Grandal told Valdes that if
it was not for the Union, Valdes could have benefits and could
be full time. Grandal said that the Union was going to disinte-
grate because the Union did not have money, but Fritz did.
Conclusions
Credibility
I credit the testimony of Kenny Perez, Eduardo Felipe, Aldo
Gomis, and Juan Valdes in view of their demeanor and the full
record. Respondent argued that Perez demonstrated poor recol-
lection as to whether his conversation with Grandal occurred
before or after his April 1996 schedule change and that Aldo
Gomis also had to have his recollection refreshed. However,
Perez’ testimony was not rebutted. Roberto Grandal did not
testify. I am unable to determine solely on a witness’ need to
have his recollection refreshed that that witness is untruthful.
Findings
The testimony of Perez showed that Respondent, through
Roberto Grandal interrogated Perez. Even though Perez was
known to support the Union, Grandal interrogated him as to his
personal situation and how he viewed what was going on be-
tween the Company and the Union.
As to whether the interrogation tended to coerce employees,
the evidence showed that Grandal interrogated Perez about
union decertification. Kenny Perez was a known union advo-
cate. The record illustrated that Respondent took a strong posi-
tion in opposition to the Union. The information sought by
Grandal involved Perez’ position regarding the decertification
petition and whether Perez could be persuaded to support de-
certification. The record shows that Perez was truthful in his
response to Grandal. There was no showing that Respondent
had a valid purpose in seeking to determine how Perez stood on
decertification. Grandal did not tell Perez why he needed the
information and he did not assure Perez against reprisals. Perez
was told that he could have a supervisory position if he sup-
ported decertification. Under the circumstances I find that
Grandal’s interrogation of Perez was a violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. NLRB, 957
F.2d 1245, 1255–1256 (5th Cir. 1992); Baptist Medical Sys-
tems, 288 NLRB 1160 (1988); Southwire Co., 282 NLRB 916
(1982); Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176 (1984); Sunnyvale
Medical Clinic, 277 NLRB 1217 (1985). See also NLRB v.
McCulloch Environmental Services, 5 F.3d 923 (5th Cir. 1993).
Grandal asked for Perez’ help and for Perez to sign the de-
certification petition. Grandal promised Perez a supervisory
position if Perez signed the petition and that Respondent would
back Perez. He threatened Perez that the Company would not
last another year with the Union and that the owner would not
keep the Company in Miami and would shut the doors.
I find that as to Kenny Perez, Respondent engaged in inter-
rogation; solicitation of employees to petition to decertify the
Union; threatened plant closure; and promised promotion in
exchange for its employee agreeing to sign a decertification
petition. The record proved that on direction from Grandal,
Eduardo Felipe threatened an employee with discharge and
promised a shift change because of the employee’s position
regarding decertification of the Union. Grandal told Gomis that
his representation of employee del Valle was futile by telling
Gomis that he was no one and that del Valle had a problem
involving the Company and supervisors. Grandal promised to
deal with del Valle without union representation. Grandal told
employee Valdes that Valdes could miss out on opportunities
and not gain benefits and be full time because of the Union.
Those comments constitute action in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. Rose Printing Co., 289 NLRB 252, 271
(1988); Fountaine Body & Hoist Co., 302 NLRB 863 (1991);
Emery Worldwide, 309 NLRB 185, 186 (1992); Flexsteel In-
dustries, 311 NLRB 257 (1993); Asarco, Inc., 316 NLRB 636
(1995); Highland Yarn Mills, 313 NLRB 193 (1993).
3. Lynn Fritz
Larry Aleman, Fernando Roca, Kenny Perez, and Aldo
Gomis testified about Lynn Fritz addressing the employees in
English. Supervisors Luis Puebla and Ramon Suarez assisted in
translating into Spanish.
Aleman testified that Lynn Fritz held two employee meet-
ings regarding the Union in 1995 and 1996. All the employees
attended the meetings. Gomis testified that Fritz held one meet-
ing on the same day in February 1996 that the Union held a
rally outside building 2. Fritz told the building 2 employees
they did not have benefits because there was a legal process
with the Union and that he did not give them benefits because
they were in a negotiation process. Gomis told Fritz that he
believed in a contract. Fritz said that he could fire Gomis and
that he could fire Puebla or Ramon. Gomis replied that would
be a mistake and they wanted the Union so they could have
security at work. Fritz said that the Company was not going to
sign a contract. Fritz said that he does not forget his friends’
faces and he does not forget his enemies’ faces.
FRITZ COS. 1301
Kenny Perez testified that Lynn Fritz told the building 2 em-
ployees that he did not want the Union, that the warehouse
employees didn’t deserve any better than anybody else working
for him and that he was not going to sign anything; he wasn’t
going to sign a contract.
Fernando Roca attended a Lynn Fritz meeting in building 2
in 1996 on the same day the Union held a meeting outside. All
the warehouse employees attended. Fritz said that union rallies
were dangerous because they could lose clients. Fritz promised
that everything was going to be done legally and there would
not be punishment because of the problems with the Union.
Lynn Fritz said that he would not forget the ones that were
faithful to him and that he would not forgive the ones that were
not.
Conclusions
Credibility
As shown here I credit the testimony of Larry Aleman, Fer-
nando Roca, Kenny Perez, and Aldo Gomis in view of their
demeanor and the full record. Lynn Fritz did not testify. Re-
spondent presented Rafael Ferro and Eric Machin in rebuttal. I
was not impressed by the demeanor of either Ferro or Machin.
Their testimony failed to demonstrate that either was fully
aware of what occurred during the meetings held by Lynn Fritz.
Findings
The credited testimony proved that Lynn Fritz told the em-
ployees that their benefits could not be improved because of the
Union and the negotiation process. Fritz told the employees that
he was not going to sign a contract with the Union. He told
them that he would not forget his friends or his enemies. That
comment constitutes an implied promise of benefit and threat of
harm because of the employees’ support or opposition to the
Company. Lynn Fritz threatened the employees that union ral-
lies could cause Respondent to lose clients. Respondent offered
no evidence to support that contention. Nothing illustrated that
Respondent was in danger of losing business because of union
rallies. I find that the above-mentioned comments by Lynn
Fritz constitute violations of Section 8(a)(1).
4. Luis Puebla
Luis Puebla worked for Fritz Companies from July 1, 1995,
until April 12, 1997. He was the human resources manager. His
immediate supervisor was Tom Magill, the general manager of
warehouse and distribution. Puebla along with Magill were
responsible for making decisions with respect to employee
discipline. Puebla also assisted Magill in translating Spanish
with the employees in the warehouse.
Eduardo Felipe became a supervisor in September 1995.
Felipe testified that he attended regular supervisory meetings
on Wednesdays. Felipe testified that he was reprimanded by
Luis Puebla because he, as supervisor, talked to employee Eric
Machin about Machin eating lunch early. Puebla told Felipe
that he was disciplining Felipe because Machin was going to
vote Company.
Eduardo Felipe testified that the supervisors including Santi-
ago Ruiz, Manny Sanchez, Jose Ferro, Fernando Alizo, and
Felipe met with Luis Puebla and Attorney Curtis from October
1996 through January or February 1997 and discussed whether
specific employees were or were not union or company sup-
porters. During those meetings each supervisor was assigned
two or three employees to convince to vote for the Company.
Felipe was assigned employees Kenny Perez, Salazar, and Mar-
lon Solorzano. Magill said during the meetings that Fritz would
never sign a contract and that Fritz had invested $22 million in
a brand new building and wasn’t going to bring in a union.
Eduardo Felipe admitted that he threatened Marlon Solor-
zano that Solorzano was going to be fired if he did not support
decertification of the Union. Solorzano asked to be placed on
the 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. shift in exchange for signing the decertifi-
cation petition and Felipe agreed. Felipe checked with Luis
Puebla and Puebla said there was no problem with giving
Solorzano the shift times requested.
Armando Bengochea testified that Luis Puebla came to him
in the receiving area around April 1996. Puebla asked how
come Bengochea was with the Union and if they had brain-
washed him. He asked what was Bengochea’s motive for being
with the Union. Bengochea replied that he was not going to
betray his fellow workers. Puebla also came to Bengochea
while he was talking on his radio and asked if Bengochea was
talking politics about the Union. Bengochea denied that he was
talking about the Union.
As shown below Israel Ramos testified that when he was
terminated Luis Puebla told him that he was being laid off be-
cause Ramos’ “work is slow, and also because you belong to
the Union.”
Luis Puebla denied threatening employees.
Conclusions
Credibility
I credit the testimony of Eduardo Felip and Armando Ben-
gochea because of their demeanor and the record evidence
taken as a whole. I am not convinced that Israel Ramos was
correct in his testimony that Luis Puebla threatened him that he
was being laid off because of slow work and because he be-
longed to the Union. That comment was specifically denied by
Puebla and none of the other terminated employees were told
they were being laid off because of the Union. Others, espe-
cially Aldo Gomis, were shown to be more visible union sup-
porters that Ramos.
Findings
The General Counsel argued that Bengochea’s testimony
proved that Puebla engaged in illegal interrogation (Sunnyvale
Medical Clinic, 277 NLRB 1217 (1985)). I rejected the General
Counsel’s offer of an affidavit of Estinolado Salado wherein
Salado allegedly testified that Puebla threatened that Respon-
dent was losing clients and the employees were losing benefits
because of the Unions. New Life Bakery, 301 NLRB 421
(1991).
I also find that the General Counsel failed to prove that Pue-
bla threatened Israel Ramos that Ramos was being laid off in
part, because he belonged to the Union. I did not credit that
testimony by Ramos.
I do find that Puebla unlawfully interrogated Bengochea
about why he was with the Union. The record illustrated that
Respondent took a strong position in opposition to the Union.
The record shows that Bengochea was truthful in his response
to Puebla. There was no showing that Respondent had a valid
purpose in questioning Bengochea. Puebla did not tell him why
he needed the information and he did not assure Bengochea
against reprisals. The above convinces me that Puebla’s ques-
tioning was coercive. Bourne v. NLRB, 322 F.2d 47 (2d Cir.
1964); Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. NLRB, 957 F.2d 1245,
1255–1256 (5th Cir. 1992); Baptist Medical Systems, 288
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1302
NLRB 1160 (1988); Southwire Co., 282 NLRB 916 (1982);
Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176 (1984); Sunnyvale Medical
Clinic, 277 NLRB 1217 (1985). See also NLRB v. McCulloch
Environmental Services, 5 F.3d 923 (5th Cir. 1993).
5. Manny Sanchez
Larry Aleman testified that after returning from supervisors’
meetings, supervisors, including Manny Sanchez, Sam Rios,
Ruiz, and Alberto Ionaris, frequently told the employees to
forget it, they would never get a contract between the Company
and the Union.
Fernando Roca testified that he overheard a conversation be-
tween Supervisor Manny Sanchez and two employees in Au-
gust 1996. The employees were Omero and Salado. Sanchez
told the employees they were not going to sign the contract.
Israel Ramos testified that Manny Sanchez made comments
about the Union following supervisors’ meetings. Sanchez said
it was very difficult for the Union to come in. After refreshing
his memory with a prior affidavit Ramos testified that Sanchez
said that they were never going to sign a contract from the Un-
ion.
Conclusions
Credibility
On the basis of the full record and their demeanor I credit the
testimony of Larry Aleman and Fernando Roca. Although I do
not fully credit the testimony of Israel Ramos I do credit his
testimony here. The full record shows that Manny Sanchez told
employees on more than one occasion that Respondent would
not sign a contract with the Union. I do not credit Manny San-
chez’ denial that he threatened employees that Respondent
would not sign a contract. Sanchez’ testimony in that regard
was not clear. He admitted that he advised employees as to the
status of contract negotiations including advising whether “a
new contract that was ready to be signed or not to be signed.”
Findings
I find that Manny Sanchez threatened employees that Re-
spondent would not sign a collective-bargaining agreement
with the Union and that constitutes a violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. There was no evidence showing that San-
chez threatened employees with discharge. I recommend dis-
missal of that allegation.
B. Section 8(a)(3)
1. Security guards
a. Respondent increased security
Respondent admitted that at all material times it has main-
tained a contract with Burns International Security Services for
security personnel who perform services at buildings 1 and 2
and that the Burns’ security personnel have been acting on
behalf of Respondent as its agents.
Aldo Gomis testified that security intensified at building 2
from December 1995 until he was discharged in October 1996.
A security guard followed Gomis throughout the workday. Mr.
Acebo the lieutenant of security, told Gomis, “Mr. Puebla has
ordered me to check on you always.”
Security guard Carlos Lizarraga had lunch with the shipping
employees. On occasion Lizarraga placed a recorder on the
table during lunch and the employees would shut up and not
discuss the Union. Aldo Gomis complained to management
about the recorder.
Eduardo Felipe testified that the security guards limited Aldo
Gomis from walking to areas of the facility because of Gomis’
union affiliation. Felipe overheard a security guard tell Gomis
that Gomis could not leave his department. According to
Felipe, there were regularly five security guards. One was in
receiving, two in shipping, a roaming guard, and a guard to
protect Carlos Bello. Bello was the employee responsible for
initiating the decertification petition. One guard named Roberto
prevented Aldo Gomis from leaving the department.
Kenny Perez testified that the security guards closely moni-
tored activity in receiving. Fernando Roca testified that a secu-
rity captain named Carlos was responsible for watching Gomis.
Carlos used a tape recorder and taped conversations during the
lunch period.
Larry Aleman testified that he did not see security guards un-
til after Fritz Companies took over and then the warehouse was
filled with guards. There were two in shipping. One of the two
moved around in other departments and ended up in shipping.
Guards followed Aldo Gomis and took notes.
b. Respondent video taped employees’ union activity
Larry Aleman attended a union rally involving Teamsters
President Ron Carey and others. There is evidence showing that
meeting occurred around February 1996. Aleman saw Carlos
Lizarraga taking pictures of the rally with a video camera. Aldo
Gomis saw Chief of Security Carlos Lizarraga taking pictures
of the union rally. Lizarraga told Gomis that he was a newspa-
per reporter but the next day Lizarraga told Gomis that he was
following Puebla’s order. Kenny Perez and Israel Ramos testi-
fied that a security guard filmed the union rally with a video
camera.
Respondent admitted that it video recorded the union rally
but contended it was acting lawfully because the rally was held
on Respondent’s property.
Conclusions
Credibility
As shown herein I credit the testimony of Aldo Gomis, Edu-
ardo Felipe, Kenny Perez, and Larry Aleman in view of their
demeanor and the full record. That testimony showed that Re-
spondent used as many as five security guards during one shift
in building 2. To the extent their testimony conflicts I do not
credit the testimony of site Supervisor Security Guard
Clemente Acebo. Among other things Acebo testified that Aldo
Gomis was never under special surveillance and that Burns
assigned only four guards to each shift. Under cross-
examination Acebo denied he had specific orders with respect
to union demonstrations but he subsequently admitted that on
one occasion there were three additional guards for a demon-
stration.
Findings
The evidence supported the allegation that Respondent in-
creased security surveillance on union supporter Aldo Gomis
and that Respondent by security guards, openly video photo-
graphed the February 1996 union rally. That videotaping of the
rally occurred in view of the employees and tended to restrain
and coerce their involvement in the union activity. Waco, Inc.,
273 NLRB 746, 747 (1984). Those actions constitute violation
of Section 8(a)(1). Respondent failed to prove that it had a le-
gitimate basis for its actions. I am unable to find a basis for the
FRITZ COS. 1303
additional contention that those actions also constitute violation
of Section 8(a)(3).
c. Warned Aldo Gomis
The General Counsel alleged that Luis Puebla illegally is-
sued a written warning to Aldo Gomis on May 20, 1996. The
evidence illustrated that Gomis actually received two written
warnings. One was dated May 20 and the other May 21. The
May 21 warning, read:

At approximately 10:55 am on Tuesday May 21, 1996 you
left your work without authorization to have a meeting in the
parking lot with a representative of the Teamsters Union who
was NOT authorized to be on our property.
Conclusions
Credibility
There are no material disputes regarding the facts. Luis Pue-
bla admitted that he directed that Gomis be warned on May 21
on information he received from security guard Acebo that
Gomis was seen outside talking to someone in a car that be-
longed to Union Agent Rudy Vidal. There was no conflicting
evidence but that Gomis had actually gone outside to pick up
asthma medication and I credit Gomis in that regard. There was
no direct evidence showing that Rudy Vidal was present and I
credit Gomis that he did not pick up the medication from Vidal.
Findings
As to whether Respondent illegally warned Gomis, I shall
first consider whether the General Counsel proved through
persuasive evidence that the Respondent acted out of antiunion
animus. Manno Electric, 321 NLRB 278 fn. 12 (1996); Wright
Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir.
1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982); NLRB v. Transporta-
tion Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (1983).
Gomis was a visible union supporter from 1994. Aldo Gomis
and Larry Aleman were observers for the Union during the
election. Gomis was on the union negotiating team. As shown
above several violations involved Aldo Gomis.
The record supports a determination of animus especially re-
garding the union activities of Gomis. Among other things, the
record shows that Respondent solicited employees to physically
harm Gomis because of his union activities.
As to the written warning issued to Gomis around May 21,
1996, there is evidence that Gomis did not engage in any activ-
ity which is customarily prohibited and that Gomis had re-
ceived permission. The warning shows on its face that Gomis
was accused of being involved with the Union.
Eduardo Felipe recalled that1 he gave Gomis permission to
go to a car and speak with someone. After Gomis went outside
Luis Puebla came down and asked Felipe why Gomis went
outside and if Gomis was talking to a union man named Rudy.
Eduardo Felipe told Puebla that he had not seen Rudy. Puebla
asked, “[H]e has permission?” Felipe replied, “[Y]es.”
Gomis testified that he went outside to pick up medication
for his asthmatic condition.
It is not disputed that Aldo Gomis has an asthmatic condi-
tion. Eduardo Felipe testified that Gomis oftentimes com-
plained about cigarette smoke. Larry Aleman testified that Aldo
Gomis had asthma attacks and used a spray medication. Ale-

1 Felipe actually recalled the incident occurred in April 1996. How-
ever, his complete testimony regarding the incident makes it clear that
he was recalling the incident that resulted in the May 21 warning.
man recalled an occasion when Gomis did not have his medica-
tion and he phoned someone to bring it to him. Gomis went out
to the parking lot to get the medication. Aleman did not recog-
nize the automobile driver that brought the medication to
Gomis but Aleman recognized that it was not Rudy Vidal.
Aleman testified that he has oftentimes gone to his car without
punching out and he has not been disciplined on those occa-
sions. Other employees went to their cars and were not disci-
plined.
Fernando Roca saw Gomis go down the ramp to the parking
lot. Gomis told Roca that he was going to look for some medi-
cine. Gomis picked up an inhalation device from a person in the
lot. Roca testified that the practice was that employees could
leave without punching out after asking a supervisor.
I find that the General Counsel proved a prima facie case
showing that Respondent was motivated to issue written warn-
ings to Gomis because of his union support.
As to whether the record showed that Respondent would
have disciplined Gomis in the absence of union activities, the
May 21 written warning specifically mentions “meeting in the
parking lot with a representative of the Teamsters Union.”
Moreover, Gomis’ supervisor, Eduardo Felipe, provided tes-
timony which compromised any contention that Gomis would
have been warned in the absence of union activity. Felipe testi-
fied that the supervisors were instructed to be strict with union
supporters. He also testified that he gave Gomis permission to
go outside on the occasion when Luis Puebla came down and
asked if Gomis had gone outside to speak with Union Agent
Rudy Vidal. Felipe told Puebla that he had given Gomis per-
mission to go outside and that he had not seen Rudy Vidal.
When Puebla and Ramon Suarez spoke with Gomis about the
incident, Gomis denied that he met with Rudy Vidal. He told
them that he had picked up medication from a family member.
Finally, the testimony of Roca, Aleman, and Felipe proved
that Respondent did not normally discipline employees because
they left their work station. In view of the full record I find that
the evidence failed to prove that Respondent would have issued
written warnings to Aldo Gomis in the absence of his union
activities. I find that Respondent issued the warning to Gomis
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3).
d. Withdrew benefits from Juan C. Valdes by reducing
his hours
Respondent’s records show that Juan Valdes’ work hours
were changed from 40 to 24 hours a week on April 29, 1996.
Valdes was employed as a temporary employee along with
Mario Perez. The company Valdes worked through was Per-
sonally Yours.
Juan Valdes supported the Union. He talked about the Union
with other employees. As shown above before Valdes’ hours
were reduced, Roberto Grandal and employee Carlos Bello
approached Valdes. Bello asked if the Company gave Valdes a
support vote who would he vote for. Valdes said that he would
not vote for the Company because they had not given him any
benefits. Grandal told Valdes to think about that because Val-
des had a family and could miss out on an opportunity and that
Valdes was not a full-time employee because they were having
battles over the Union. Grandal told Valdes that if it was not for
the Union, Valdes could have benefits and could be full time.
Grandal said that the Union was going to disintegrate because
the Union did not have money but Fritz did.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1304
Around April 29 Fernando Alizo told Valdes that he was no
longer needed. Valdes checked with Ramon Suarez. Suarez
said that Valdes’ schedule was changed and he would work
only Thursday, Friday, and Saturday from that time. Valdes
met with Luis Puebla and Puebla told him it was a company
decision to change his hours. Puebla told Valdes that if he did
not like it he could do whatever he wanted.
Conclusion
Credibility
There is no dispute but that Respondent reduced the hours
per week of Juan Valdes on April 29, 1996. In view of de-
meanor and the record I credit the testimony of Juan Valdes
regarding his conversations with Roberto Grandal. That testi-
mony was not rebutted.
Findings
Again as in the case of Gomis’ warnings, I shall first con-
sider whether the General Counsel proved through persuasive
evidence that the Respondent acted out of antiunion animus.
Manno Electric, 321 NLRB 278 fn. 12 (1996); Wright Line,
251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981),
cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982); NLRB v. Transportation
Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (1983).
The record proved Respondent’s animus. Respondent was
shown to have threatened employees including Valdes because
of their support for the Union.
Here, the timing of Respondent’s action coming soon after
Roberto Grandal learned that Valdes supported the Union and
threatened reprisals, tends to support a finding that Valdes’
hours were reduced because of the Union. Stor-Rite Metal
Products, 856 F.2d 957 (7th Cir. 1988).
Respondent argued that the reduction in Valdes’ weekly
work hours coincided with Respondent’s loss of the PDVSA
account and that Valdes was temporary and not in the bargain-
ing unit. However, regardless of whether Valdes was in the
bargaining unit he was an employee entitled to the protection of
the Act.
The testimony of Juan Valdes shows that he was never told
that his hours were being reduced because of loss of the
PDVSA account or because of any business loss. Moreover,
there was no evidence in the testimony of Respondent’s wit-
nesses to the effect that Valdes was ever told that his hours
were reduced because of loss of business. Under the circum-
stances I find that the record does not support Respondent’s
contention as to why Valdes’ hours were reduced. I find that
Respondent failed to show that it would have reduced Vales’
hours of work in the absence of his union activities. I find that
Respondent engaged in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act by reducing Valdes’ hours from 40 to 26 per week.
e. Discharge of Fernando Roca, Jesus del Valle, Lazaro Ale-
man, Israel Ramos, Rafael Soto, and Aldo Gomis
In view of the similarity between this 8(a)(3) allegation and
the 8(a)(5) allegation regarding the layoff, I have considered
this allegation below under Section 8(a)(5).
C. Section 8(a)(5)
1. Bargaining unit and relocation
Respondent admitted that the following constitutes an appro-
priate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b), and that Respondent relocated bar-
gaining unit employees to a building at 10000 N.W. 25th Street,
Miami, Florida:

All full time cargo handlers/warehousemen, drivers, dispatch-
ers, palletizers, carpentry employees, receivers and forklift
drivers employed by Respondents at its 9020 N.W. 12th
Street, Miami, Florida facility; but excluding all other em-
ployees, office clerical employees, managerial employees,
confidential employees, guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.

Respondent admitted that the Union was certified as the ex-
clusive collective-bargaining agent of the bargaining unit em-
ployees on June 13, 1994.
2. Unilaterally transferred work
The General Counsel alleged that Respondent unilaterally
transferred work for OMC from building 2 to building 1.
On January 19, 1996 Respondent notified its employees of
organizational changes including the following:

[I]n order to provide the additional room for growth that
Xerox and OMC require, they will be moving to Bldg. #1 the
weekend of the 20th and 21st of January. This move has been
planned for some time and with the help of the Client Ser-
vices group, will be accomplished on schedule. They will be
moving into the area that is now occupied by WTDC and, in
the future, will be called Warehouse #3 . . . .

Respondent does not dispute the allegations that it moved its
OMC operations from building 2 to building 1. Instead Re-
spondent contends that at the time the decision was made to
move, it was not a mandatory subject of bargaining because the
move did not affect the terms and conditions of bargaining unit
employees.
Clarence Lark served as president and business agent for the
Local Union. He attended the negotiation meetings with Re-
spondent that started around June 1994 and extended into No-
vember 1995. During negotiations the parties reached tentative
agreement on most of the contract proposals except some
monetary items.
After the June 1994 certification of the Union 9 or 10 negoti-
ating sessions were held in 1994. Nine or 10 more sessions
were held in 1995. Lark testified that the decision to transfer
OMC work was not discussed with the Union. Assistant Busi-
ness Agent Rudy Vidal testified that Respondent did not notify
the Union of plans to transfer work for OMC from building 2 to
building 1. Vidal testified that from a time after the Union was
certified Respondent started hiring temporary employees for
bargaining unit work in building 2. Around mid-1995 the tem-
porary employee work force in building 2 had reached around
30 or 40.
Supervisor Eduardo Felipe testified to the effect that the job
skills involved for the OMC account did not materially change
when the work was transferred from building 2 to building 1.
Felipe testified that temporary employees performed the same
work as full-time employees in departments including decon-
solidation.
Respondent witness Tom Magill was told by the managers of
building 1 and building 2 around October 1995 that OMC was
considering closing their Miramar facility and assigning their
distribution work to Respondent. Before that time Respondent
had handled only OMC freight forwarding at its building 2.
OMC distribution would require substantially larger warehouse
space than Respondent had available at building 2 or even
FRITZ COS. 1305
building 1. Around the same time Xerox was also involved in a
change and Magill was directed by his supervisors to pursue
getting the 50,000 square feet of warehouse space that was
adjacent to building 1. The OMC work was transferred solely
because of the customer’s requirement for more space than
Respondent had available at building 2. Magill testified that
none of the bargaining unit employees in building 2 lost any
hours, overtime or wages, nor were there layoffs or other harm
to those employees because of the transfer of OMC work.
Conclusion
Credibility
There is no factual dispute but that Respondent unilaterally
moved its OMC operation.
Findings
The General Counsel alleged that Respondent illegally
moved its OMC operation without notice or bargaining with the
Union. Dubuque Packing Co.,2 303 NLRB 386 (1991).
The credited evidence showed that Respondent moved its
OMC operations to building 1 in January 1996. Eventually all
that work and work from building 1 and building 2 was moved
to the new facility.
Building 1 and building 2 are both located in West Dade
County and are 5 miles apart. The record including the testi-
mony of Eduardo Filipe and Tom Magill showed that the OMC
work at building 1 was substantially the same as that work had
been at building 2. However, Magill testified that the function
of the building 1 OMC work was different than it had been at
building 2. Building 2 work involved freight forwarding
whereas the work after the transfer to building 1, involved dis-
tribution which is a much wider spectrum of operations. The
move was necessitated by the need for additional warehouse
space that was not available at building 2. The circumstances
described herein would fall within the third category of man-
agement decisions described in First National Maintenance.
That category involves decisions which have a direct impact on
employment but have as their focus the economic profitability
of the employing enterprise. First National Maintenance Corp.
v. NLRB, 452 U.S. 666 (1981).
Here unlike in First National Maintenance the employer did
intend to move a portion of its operation elsewhere; the busi-
ness decision in question was not akin to the decision whether
to be in business at all and the decision was not based solely on
the size of the management fee. Instead the decision was more
along the lines of the decision considered in Fibreboard Corp.
v. NLRB, 379 U.S. 203 (1964). Dubuque Packing Co., supra.
In Dubuque Packing Co., the NLRB required an inquiry into
(1) whether the employer had an intention to replace discharged
employees or to move that operation elsewhere; (2) was the
employer faced with a decision changing the scope and direc-
tion of the enterprise akin to the decision whether to be in busi-
ness at all; and (3) whether the employer’s decision was based
solely on the size of the management fee or a desire to reduce
labor costs.
Here Respondent’s decision was concerned with whether to
move its OMC operations from building 2 to building 1, a dis-
tance of 5 miles. The decision, as shown by Respondent’s ac-
tions after the move, involved relocation of some of the bar-

2 Dubuque Packing Co. (II), was cited by the General Counsel as
303 U.S. 386 (1991).
gaining unit employees to an existing facility that did not in-
clude employees in the bargaining unit. Moreover, there was
testimony that Respondent increased the number of temporary
employees in its OMC operations. Temporary employees were
not included in the bargaining unit.
There was no showing that Respondent faced a decision akin
to the decision whether to be in business at all. In fact, there
was evidence in the record showing that Respondent has con-
tinued in business even though OMC is no longer its customer.
As to the third criteria, the evidence illustrated that Respon-
dent’s decision was based on a need for additional warehouse
space. The change in OMC work from freight forwarding to
distribution when added to change in work for Xerox was esti-
mated by Respondent to require an additional 50,000 square
feet of space.
The General Counsel proved a prima facie case that Respon-
dent’s decision involved a relocation of unit work was unac-
companied by a basic change in the nature of Respondent’s
business operation.
Respondent agreed that it moved its OMC operations unilat-
erally but contended that move did not involve a mandatory
subject of bargaining in that it did not have a significant impact
on bargaining unit employees.
Respondent failed to establish “that the work performed at
the new location varies significantly from the work performed
at the former plant.” It failed to establish that the work per-
formed at the former plant was to be discontinued entirely and
not moved to the new location. Respondent failed to establish
that the employer’s decision involved a change in the scope and
direction of the enterprise. Nevertheless, Respondent satisfied
the Board’s requirement that it alternatively show that labor
costs were not a factor in the decision. The record evidence was
not disputed but that the sole reason for the move to building 1
was caused by the lack of sufficient warehouse space to ac-
commodate the needs for the additional OMC distribution cen-
ter. Labor costs were not a factor in the decision. Dubuque
Packing Co., supra.
I find that Respondent successfully produced evidence rebut-
ting General Counsel’s prima facie case. See also Q-1 Motor
Express, Inc., 323 NLRB 944 (1997); Elliott Turbomachinery
Co., 320 NLRB 141 (1995), where the Board found violations.
3. Laid-off employees including Fernando Roca, Jesus del
Valle, Lazaro Aleman, Israel Ramos, Rafael Soto, Aldo Gomis,
and others
The General Counsel alleged Respondent terminated em-
ployees Roca, Del Valle, Aleman, Ramos, Soto, Gomis, and
others in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act.
Former Union President Clarence Lark, Business Agents
Rudy Vidal and Gerry Pape, and member of the union negotiat-
ing committee Aldo Gomis all testified that Respondent pro-
posed elimination of the trucking operations during negotia-
tions in the summer of 1995. The Union opposed that proposal
pointing out that the drivers were the strongest union supporters
in the bargaining unit. Lark, Vidal, Pape, and Gomis testified
that the Union insisted that if the driver positions were elimi-
nated the drivers would be permitted to transfer to the ware-
house with no loss of seniority. On the second day of 3 days of
negotiations in July, Respondent agreed that the drivers would
transfer into the warehouse without loss of seniority. There
were also negotiations as to the pay the drivers would receive in
the warehouse. The parties did not agree on the wages for the
drivers after being transferred. The Union continued to insist
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1306
that the drivers retain the same wages and the Respondent
would not agree. Respondent argued that the drivers should
assume the wages of the warehouse department.
Respondent offered testimony of Tom Magill and David
Curtis to the effect that the parties negotiations over termination
of trucking operations resulted in a signed letter of understand-
ing which was received in evidence as Respondent’s Exhibit 1.
Respondent made a last and final contract proposal on Sep-
tember 21, 1995 (GC Exh. 15). The Union rejected Respon-
dent’s September 21 proposal. The parties have not reached
agreement.
Fernando Roca testified that Supervisor Victor Suarez came
to him at work on October 18, 1996, and said, “[O]n Monday,
we are going to resolve this situation.” Roca asked, “why, are
they going to lay us off?” Suarez replied, “[W]ell, that’s on the
edge and . . . .”
During October 21, 1996 negotiations Respondent an-
nounced that all the drivers would be laid off. Larry Aleman
testified that layoffs were discussed during the last negotiating
session around October 21, 1996, at the Marriott Hotel on Lin-
coln Road. Luis Puebla, Tom Magill, Patrick Richter, and
David Curtis were there for Respondent. Mark Richard, Vince
Hickman, Aldo Gomis, and Aleman were there for the Union.
Puebla started the meeting by saying the Company was losing
accounts and there would be a layoff of the drivers who came
to the warehouse. Puebla named the drivers as including Aldo
Gomis, Rafael Soto, Aleman, Jesus del Valle, Fernando Roca,
and Israel Ramos. The drivers were laid off the next day.
Each of the laid-off employees were advised of their respec-
tive layoff at work on October 22. Fernando Roca testified
about October 22. Ramon Suarez sent Roca to Roberto Gran-
dal’s office. Grandal, Luis Puebla, Tom Magill, and Victor
Suarez were in the office. Puebla told Roca that it was neces-
sary to lay off the drivers. Roca asked, “[A]ll the drivers?”
Magill replied, “[Y]es, all the drivers.” On October 22 Larry
Aleman was told to report to Luis Puebla. He met with Puebla,
Tom Magill, and Roberto Grandal in Ramon Suarez’ office.
Puebla told Aleman that he was being laid off.
Aldo Gomis and Israel Ramos also testified about being told
they were laid off on October 22. Israel Ramos testified that
Luis Puebla told him that he “had to give you layoff because
work is slow, and also because you belong to the Union.”
Roca testified that one of the former drivers, Tony Negrin,
was not laid off. Eduardo Felipe testified without rebuttal that
Negrin became a company supporter. Other employees includ-
ing Aldo Gomis expressed displeasure with Negrin because he
changed from supporting the Union to supporting the Com-
pany. The affidavit testimony of David Curtis (R. Exh. 6)
shows that he learned after talking with Luis Puebla on March
1, 1996, that Aldo Gomis and Larry Aleman were harassing
employees Santiago Gonzalez and Tony Negrin. As shown
herein both Gomis and Aleman were known union supporters.
Larry Aleman and Aldo Gomis were the first elected em-
ployee representatives after the Union was certified in 1994.
Aleman and Aldo Gomis were observers for the Union during
the election. Aleman held one union meeting at his home and
he attended the last two negotiating sessions between the Union
and Respondent before his last workday of October 22, 1996.
Aleman, Gomis, Roca, and Israel testified they each wore union
clothing including T-shirts at work on Fridays which was cas-
ual day. They all discussed the Union during lunch and breaks.
Conclusions
Credibility
I am convinced on the basis of the full record that Tom
Magill and David Curtis testified truthfully regarding the par-
ties’ agreement on elimination of Respondent’s trucking opera-
tions. That agreement is in evidence as shown above. The
agreement shows on its face that it was signed by Clarence
Lark of the Union on July 21, 1995.
However, I find nothing in the agreement which supports
Respondent’s contention that that agreement provided that dis-
placed trucker employees that elected to fill positions in the
warehouse, could be selected for layoff on the basis of their
warehouse, rather than company seniority.
The evidence that Respondent made a last and final offer on
September 21 is not in dispute. I credit the above testimony of
Fernando Roca, Larry Aleman, and Aldo Gomis. As shown
above, I do not credit the testimony of Israel Ramos to the ex-
tent he testified that Luis Puebla told him that he was also being
laid off because he belonged to the Union.
Findings
As to the 8(a)(3) allegations that Respondent illegally termi-
nated Roca, Del Valle, Aleman, Ramos, Soto, and Gomis, I
shall first consider whether the General Counsel proved
through persuasive evidence that the Respondent acted out of
antiunion animus. Manno Electric, 321 NLRB 278 fn. 12
(1996); Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd 662 F.2d
899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982); NLRB v.
Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (1983).
As shown above the Union contended during negotiations
that the drivers were their strongest supporters. That was sup-
ported by the record. Four of the six alleged discriminatees
testified and all four testified without dispute they were in-
volved in activities favoring the Union. Gomis, Aleman, Roca,
and Ramos all signed cards, attended union meetings, and wore
clothing at work which identified them as union supporters.
On the other hand Respondent retained employees that dem-
onstrated opposition to the Union or support for decertification.
One former truckdriver, Juan Negrin, was promoted to a super-
visory position of October 7, 1996, and was not laid off.
Negrin’s former immediate supervisor, Eduardo Felipe, testi-
fied that Negrin switched from supporting the Union to sup-
porting the Company. Other employees including Aldo Gomis
expressed displeasure with Negrin because he changed from
supporting the Union to supporting the Company. The affidavit
testimony of David Curtis (R. Exh. 6) shows that he learned
after talking with Luis Puebla on March 1, 1996, that Aldo
Gomez and Larry Aleman were harassing employees Santiago
Gonzalez and Negrin. As shown herein both Gomis and Ale-
man were known union supporters.
Other retained employees were known by Respondent to op-
pose the Union or support decertification. Irving Puig, Santiago
Gonzalez, and Marlon Soloranzo were not laid off in October
1996. Their personnel files held by Respondent included copies
of Puig’s February 2, 1996, Gonzalez’ February 27, 1996, and
Soloranzo’s February 26, 1996 signatures on the decertification
petition. Eric Machin was retained. On June 14, 1994, Luis
Puebla sent an e-mail requesting authority to extend prior ser-
vice to Machin. In that e-mail Puebla made the comment that
Machin is “an essential link in our efforts in regards to a new
election.”
FRITZ COS. 1307
As shown herein Respondent demonstrated its animus to the
Union through comments including 8(a)(1) violations.
As shown above the full record including testimony and the
agreement of the parties (R. Exh. 1) shows that Respondent
agreed to transfer the drivers into the warehouse. The record
also shows that the former drivers were discriminatorily se-
lected for layoff over employees with less seniority. On the
basis of the record I find that the General Counsel proved a
prima facie case.
As shown above the complaint allegations include a conten-
tion that the layoffs constituted a violation of Section 8(a)(5) as
well as Section 8(a)(3). I shall consider that allegation along
with the query of whether the record showed that Respondent
would have laid off the alleged discriminatees in the absence of
Union activity.
Respondent contends that decided to layoff 10 employees for
business reasons and that the alleged discriminatees were se-
lected pursuant to its July 21, 1995 letter of understanding with
the Union.
Respondent argued that it decided to layoff the alleged dis-
criminatees on the basis of their warehouse seniority as op-
posed to their company seniority.
Tom Magill testified that he managed the July 21 letter of
agreement with the understanding that all temporary employees
had less seniority than the displaced workers that were former
truckers, and that the truckdrivers had less seniority than all of
the other employees in the warehouse. He testified that he man-
aged that basis of understanding because he sat through the
negotiations and “had a clear understanding of what was nego-
tiated and what was agreed to.”
Luis Puebla admitted that he was not present during the ne-
gotiation session in which the July 21, 1995 letter of under-
standing was signed. Puebla testified that the decision to select
former truckdrivers for layoff in October was based on the July
21, 1995 letter of understanding which, according to Puebla,
provided that the former drivers were the less senior employees
in the warehouse.
The parties July 21, 1995 letter of understanding includes
seven numbered paragraphs and includes an agreement for
Respondent to discontinue its trucking operations effective July
22, 1995. The agreement also includes one reference to senior-
ity:

2. Stair Cargo agrees in principle that it will not use
temporary labor to the extent that such displaced workers
are available, ready and qualified for work. This principle
will be administered as follows:
A. Attached to this letter as “Exhibit A” is a list of po-
sitions currently filled by temporary workers. The Com-
pany will offer these positions to the displaced workers
who have selected said positions on the basis of seniority.

There is no mention in the letter of agreement that former
truckers will be treated differently from other warehouse em-
ployees as to layoffs once they have accepted a position in the
warehouse.
Respondent argued in its brief that its consistent and histori-
cal bargaining position for purposes of layoff and recall is cal-
culated on a departmental basis. David Curtis identified Re-
spondent’s Exhibit 5 as a 1995 Respondent collective-
bargaining proposal on layoff and recall which provided that
when “practical, the employee most recently hired, within that
job classification, will be the first laid off.” Curtis testified that
Respondent never changed its position on desiring to handle
layoffs on the basis of job seniority.
I am unable to agree with Respondent. Absent agreement
with the Union, there was no basis shown for Respondent to
unilaterally implement its collective-bargaining proposal re-
garding selection for layoff. Even though Respondent allegedly
made its final contract proposal on September 21, 1995, there
was no showing that the parties had reached impasse at or be-
fore the October 1996 layoff. In fact Respondent made no ar-
gument that it ever reached impasse with the Union.
I find that the evidence failed to show that Respondent
would have terminated the alleged discriminatees in the ab-
sence of Union activity and that action constitutes a violation of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. The evidence also proved
that Respondent laid off those employees without agreement
with the Union and that its action was in violation of its July
1995 letter of understanding reached with the Union. Respon-
dent took the action in October 1996 without prior notice or
bargaining with the Union and without reaching impasse, in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Fritz Companies, Inc. and Fritz Air Freight is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. Freight Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union
No. 390, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters
AFL–CIO is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent by soliciting its employees to physically harm
an employee because of his support for the Union; by coer-
cively interrogating its employees about their union activity; by
soliciting its employees to sign a petition to decertify the Un-
ion; by promising its employee a supervisory position in ex-
change for the employee signing a petition to decertify the Un-
ion; by promising its employee that it will back him if he signs
a petition to decertify the Union; by threatening its employee
that Respondent will shut its doors if the employees do not get
rid of the Union; by threatening its employees that union repre-
sentation on behalf of employees is futile; by promising to deal
with employees regarding grievances without union representa-
tion; by threatening its employees they will miss out on oppor-
tunities and not gain benefits and become full time, because of
the Union; by telling its employees that it could not offer im-
proved employee benefits because of the Union and the nego-
tiation process; by threatening its employees that it will not sign
a collective-bargaining contract with the Union; by telling its
employees that union rallies could cause Respondent to lose
business; by threatening its employees that they will never get a
collective-bargaining agreement with it; and by increasing sur-
veillance of its employees’ union activities and videotaping
those union activities; engaged in activity violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. Respondent by warning its employee Aldo Gomis; by re-
ducing the hours of employee Juan Valdes and by terminating
its employees Fernando Roca, Jesus del Valle, Lazaro Aleman,
Israel Ramos, Rafael Soto, and Aldo Gomis, has engaged in
activity in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
5. Respondent, by refusing to bargain in good faith with
Freight Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No.
390, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters
AFL–CIO as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1308
of its employees in the following appropriate bargaining unit by
unilaterally terminating its employees Fernando Roca, Jesus del
Valle, Lazaro Aleman, Israel Ramos, Rafael Soto, and Aldo
Gomis, has engaged in activity in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
and (5) of the Act:

All full time cargo handlers/warehousemen, drivers, dispatch-
ers, palletizers, carpentry employees, receivers and forklift
drivers employed by Respondents at its 9020 N.W. 12th
Street, Miami, Florida facility; but excluding all other em-
ployees, office clerical employees, managerial employees,
confidential employees, guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.

6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and
desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
As I have found that Respondent has illegally terminated its
employees Fernando Roca, Jesus del Valle, Lazaro Aleman,
Israel Ramos, Rafael Soto, and Aldo Gomis, and illegally re-
duced the work hours of Juan Valdes, in violation of the Act, I
shall order Respondent to give those employees immediate and
full reinstatement to each person’s former position or, if that
position no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position
without prejudice to each employee’s seniority and other rights
and privileges. I order Respondent to make Juan Valdes, Fer-
nando Roca, Jesus del Valle, Lazaro Aleman, Israel Ramos,
Rafael Soto, and Aldo Gomis whole for all loss of earnings
suffered as a result of the discrimination against them. Backpay
shall be computed as described in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90
NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as described in New Horizons
for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987). I recommend that
Respondent be ordered to expunge from its records any refer-
ence to the unlawful terminations and to the warning issued to
Aldo Gomis and the reduction in hours to Juan Valdes and to
give Valdes, Fernando Roca, Jesus del Valle, Lazaro Aleman,
Israel Ramos, Rafael Soto, and Aldo Gomis written notice of
such expunction and to inform all those employees that Re-
spondent’s unlawful conduct will not be used as a basis for
further personnel actions.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and the en-
tire record, I issue the following recommended3
ORDER
The Respondent, Fritz Companies, Inc. and Fritz Air Freight,
Miami, Florida, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Soliciting its employees to physically harm an employee
because of his support for the Union; coercively interrogating
its employees about their union activity; soliciting its employ-
ees to sign a petition to decertify the Union; promising its em-

3 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
ployee a supervisory position in exchange for the employee
signing a petition to decertify the Union; promising its em-
ployee that it will back him if he signs a petition to decertify the
Union; threatening its employee that Respondent will shut its
doors if the employees do not get rid of the Union; threatening
its employees that union representation on behalf of employees
is futile; promising to deal with employees regarding griev-
ances without union representation; threatening its employees
they will miss out on opportunities and not gain benefits and
become full time, because of the Union; telling its employees
that it could not offer improved employee benefits because of
the Union and the negotiation process; threatening its employ-
ees that it will not sign a collective-bargaining contract with the
Union; telling its employees that union rallies could cause Re-
spondent to lose business; threatening its employees that they
will never get a collective-bargaining agreement with it; and
increasing surveillance of its employees’ union activities and
videotaping those union activities.
(b) Warning, reducing the weekly work hours, and terminat-
ing its employees because of their support of the Union.
(c) Failing and refusing to provide notice to and an opportu-
nity to bargain collectively with Freight Drivers, Warehouse-
men and Helpers Local Union No. 390, affiliated with Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters AFL–CIO as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of its employees in the
following appropriate collective-bargaining unit by unilaterally
terminating employees:

All full time cargo handlers/warehousemen, drivers, dispatch-
ers, palletizers, carpentry employees, receivers and forklift
drivers employed by Respondents at its 9020 N.W. 12th
Street, Miami, Florida facility; but excluding all other em-
ployees, office clerical employees, managerial employees,
confidential employees, guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.

(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days of this Order, offer immediate and full re-
instatement to Juan Valdes, Fernando Roca, Jesus del Valle,
Lazaro Aleman, Israel Ramos, Rafael Soto, and Aldo Gomis to
each of their former positions or, if those positions no longer
exist, to substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to
their seniority or any other rights or privileges previously en-
joyed.
(b) Within 14 days of this Order, remove from its files any
reference to the warning issued to Aldo Gomis, the reduction in
hours issued to Juan Valdes and the termination of Fernando
Roca, Jesus del Valle, Lazaro Aleman, Israel Ramos, Rafael
Soto, and Aldo Gomis, and notify all those employees that this
has been done and that evidence of those disciplinary actions
will not be used as a basis for future personnel actions.
(c) On request, bargain with Freight Drivers, Warehousemen
and Helpers Local Union No. 390, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters AFL–CIO as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of its employees in the above
mentioned appropriate collective-bargaining unit over its deci-
sion to terminate unit employees, and to reduce to writing any
agreement reached as a result of such bargaining.
FRITZ COS. 1309
(d) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, make available
to the Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards, per-
sonnel records, reports, and all other records necessary to ana-
lyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cility in Miami, Florida, copies of the attached notice.4 Copies
of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 12, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately

4 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in con-
spicuous places including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the
pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of
business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings,
the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a
copy of the notice to all current employees and former employ-
ees employed by the Respondent at any time since March 7,
1996.
(g) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director, Region 12, a sworn certification of a respon-
sible official on a from provided by the Region attesting to the
steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.