So-Cal Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 17, 1985

273 N.L.R.B. 1486 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

1486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
So-Cal Products, Inc. d/b/a Eagle Headers and
International Union, United Automobile, Aero-
space & Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, Local 509. Case 31-CA-13088
17 January 1985
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
HUNTER AND DENNIS
On 24 February 1984 Administrative Law Judge
Earldean V.S. Robbins is'sued the attached deci-
sion. The General Counsel ,filed exceptions and a
supporting brief, and the Respondent filed an an-
swering brief.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,' and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order ' of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, So-Cal
Products, Inc. d/b/a Eagle Headers, Canoga Park,
California, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall take the action set forth in the Order.
1 The General Counsel has excepted to some of the judge's credibility
findings The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administra-
tive 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 re-
versing the findings
No party excepted to the judge's 8(a)(1) findings
Member Hunter, in the absence of exceptions, adopts pro forma the
judge's findings of 8(a)(1) violations
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
EARLDEAN V S ROBBINS, Administrative Law Judge.
This matter was heard before me in Los Angeles, Cali-
fornia, on October 25 and 26, 1983. The charge was filed
by International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
& Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local
509 (the Union), and served on So-Cal Products, Inc
d/b/a Eagle Headers (Respondent), on May 9, 1983. The
complaint, which issued June 23, 1983, alleges that Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National
Labor Relations Act (the Act) The basic issues herein
are whether Respondent discharged employees Rafael
Gutierrez and Salvador Guzman because of their union
or other protected concerted activities and whether Re-
spondent engaged in certain other conduct which consti-
tuted independent violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
On the entire record,' including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
the briefs filed by the parties, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all times material, Respondent, a California corpo-
ration with an office and principal place of business lo-
cated in Canoga Park, California, has been engaged in
the manufacture of-automobile parts. Respondent, in the
course and conduct of its business operations, annually
purchases and receives goods or services valued in
excess of $50,000 from sellers or suppliers located within
the State of California, which sellers or suppliers receive
such goods in substantially the same form directly , from
outside the State of California.
The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find
that Respondent is now, and has been at all times materi-
al herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
Ii LABOR ORGANIZATION
The complaint alleges, the parties stipulate, and I find
that the Union is now, and has been at all times material
herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
1. The business justifications for the layoffs
Respondent manufactures accessories and exhaust
products for automobiles Its business is a seasonal one
with March through May being the peak sales season
and August through September the slowest sales season
The production seasons parallel the sales season except
that the production cycles usually commence 30 to 60
days prior to the sales cycles. Its employee complement
fluctuates generally in direct relation to the production
cycle, expanding by as much as 30 percent during the
peak season. As the peak production season ends, Re-
spondent normally begins a series of layoffs to reduce
the complement as required by the demands of the
slower production season However, Respondent normal-
ly endeavors to confine this reduction in employee com-
plement to less skilled employees and to maintain a per-
manent complement of the higher producing, more
skilled employees.
Prior to 1980, Respondent was owned by Steven
Goldstein, vice president of operations, and his father,
Charles Goldstein. In 1980, due to strong competition
and a rapidly escalating interest rate, Respondent began
experiencing severe financial difficulty so that it
switched from a profit of $150,000 in 1979 to a loss of
$85,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1980.
This downturn continued throughout 1981 and into 1982.
In an effort to achieve sounder financial footing, Steven
' Respondent's unopposed motion to correct the transcript is granted
273 NLRB No. 185
EAGLE HEADERS 1487
Goldstein (Goldstein), and his father sold 25 percent of
the business to Herbert Goldstein in February 1982. In
June 1982, having failed to achieve financial stability, an
additional 25 percent of the business was sold to Herbert
Goldstein. Steven Goldstein remained as vice president
of operations until August 1983 when he and his father
sold the remainder of their interest in Respondent to
Herbert Goldstein.
Herbert Goldstein immediately expressed the desire to
cut overhead expenses as much as possible and increase
efficiency. In July and August, he demanded that Gold-
stein cut the payroll by 25 or 30 employees, but Gold-
stein argued successfully that these layoffs could not be
effected all at once without adverse effect on Respond-
ent. However, he began a series of layoffs on August 13.
Eight employees were laid off in August, 10 in Novem-
ber, and 10 in December. In January, Respondent had
100 to 115 employees, about 95 percent of whom were
Spanish-speaking. Guzman and another employee were
laid off on January 14 and Gutierrez was laid off on Jan-
uary 21. The General Counsel concedes, and I find, that
Respondent had legitimate business justification to effect
layoffs extending into January.
2. The layoff of Guzman and Gutierrez
Guzman was employed by Respondent on January 29,
1976. He worked primarily as a parts mover for the
welders. However, he was classified as a fabrication em-
ployee, 2 and did other jobs. At the time of his layoff, he
was the only employee who worked primarily as a parts
mover. Gutierrez, who worked on a production line as a
collector-welder, 3 was hired by Respondent in August
1976. At the time of his layoff, there were two collector-
welders in Respondent's employ. A third collector-
welder, with greater seniority than Gutierrez, had been
laid off on December 31, 1982. The General Counsel
contends that Guzman and Gutierrez were selected for
layoff because they engaged in union activities.
In mid-November 1982, certain of Respondent's em-
ployees began discussing the desirability of union repre-
sentation. At some point they selected Guzman to con-
tact the Union, which he did on January 2 or 3, 1983.4
The union representatives gave Guzman union authoriza-
tion cards which he distributed to some fellow employ-
ees who lived near him with the instructions to mail
them to the Union after they were signed. On January 8,
union representatives met with 15 to 20 of Respondent's
employees at a park in Santa Monica. Both Guzman and
Gutierrez were present. During the following week an-
other union meeting was held. About 20 to 30 employees
attended. Some of the employees signed union authoriza-
tion cards at these meetings. Both Goldstein and 011ie
Adkins, Respondent's plant manager and general fore-
man, testified that they had no knowledge of any union
2 This is a catch-all classification covering various jobs.
3 A welder who welds the exhaust pipes of an automobile header into
a large pipe which is a collector for all of the smog pipes.
• Unless otherwise indicated, all dates hereinafter will be in 1983.
activity prior to Respondent receiving notice of the filing
of the representation petition on January 24 or 25.5
On January 14, at the end of Guzman's shift, Adkins
told Guzman he had to lay him off because Respondent
wanted to save money. On January 20, Adkins called
Guiterrez to his office and started to speak to him in
English. 6 Gutierrez said he did not understand, so lead-
person Vicente Jimenez was called in to interpret. Ac-
cording to Gutierrez, Jimenez said, "011ie [Adkins] says
that he does not like your attitude, and he doesn't like
you at all." Gutierrez replied, "I am not here to be liked
by anybody. I come to just do my work and do it right.
I see that there are two checks on the table, and there is
nothing to be said." Gutierrez then asked about unem-
ployment papers Adkins said, "You are not going to
need them, because you are dead."
Adkins testified that he told Gutierrez that they had to
cut the work force, that Goldstein had insisted he had to
let Gutierrez go, and the reason Adkins had chosen Gu-
tierrez was his poor work record, his poor production.
Gutierrez asked something about whether Adkins could
give him a second chance. Adkins said, no, the decision
was not his. Adkins denies saying, "I don't like your atti-
tude" or "I don't like you at all." He also denies that
Guiterrez said, "I don't work here to be liked by any-
body. I come just to do my work and do it right."
Adkins testified that Gutierrez did ask about papers to
get his unemployment and he did tell Guiterrez that he
did not need papers. However, he denies saying, "You're
dead."7
I credit Adkins and Jimenez as to this conversation.
Their testimony is mutually corroborative. Further, even
assuming, arguendo, that Adkins had knowledge of the
union activities, I note that there was no expression of
hostility toward Guzman when he was laid off. Yet inso-
far as the record reveals, it was Guzman who was an ini-
tiator of union activities and there is no evidence that
Gutierrez engaged in any union activity any different in
kind from that of a number of other employees. In this
regard, I have fully considered, and reject, the General
Counsel's contention that the sign in Spanish at Gutier-
rez' work station, "Let's support Brujo [the warlock],"
conveyed his involvement in union activities. The record
does not support such a conclusion.
Employee Tommy Torres testified that some time in
January, prior to Guzman's layoff, Adkins asked him if
he knew that Leonard Hicks, Salvador, and Delgadillo
were involved in the Union. Torres said he did not know
anything. Adkins said, okay, and walked away.5
Wayne Dodds, a maintenance mechanic in Respond-
ent's employ, testified that in late January or early Feb-
ruary he went into Adkins' office to obtain his job as-
5 On January 20, the Union filed a petition with the Board seeking to
represent Respondent's employees. According to Goldstein, Respondent
received the notice of the filing of the petition on January 24 or 25.
6 Goldstem and 011ie Adkins, then Respondent's plant manager and
general foreman, do not speak Spanish. However, several of the lead per-
sons are bilingual.
7 At the time of the hearing, Jimenez had been plant manger for 2
weeks and Adkins was no longer in Respondent's employ.
Hicks and Delgadillo were both welders in Respondent's employ at
the time.
1488 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
signments. At that time, Adkins mentioned that there
was a union meeting the previous evening. Dodds said,
"That is nice." Adkins asked if Dodds would see if he
could find out anything about it, find out who the people
were who were involved. Dodds said, sure, I'll see what
I can find out. According to Dodds, Adkins further
stated that he knew the address where the union meeting
was held. Dodds also testified that on February 14 he
went into Adkins' office. Leo Trane, a maintenance em-
ployee, was there. Dodds asked Adkins if he had heard
anything about the Union lately Adkins said, no, he had
not. Trane said, "I would fire them all." Adkins said,
"Well, we got rid of two of them." Dodds asked if one
of them was Huedo, a supervisor in welding. Adkins
said, no, it was not, it was Rafael and Salvador Dodds is
not sure whether his first conversation with Adkins oc-
curred before or after Guzman and Gutierrez were laid
off.9
Juan Vasquez, a leadman, testified that in the second
or third week of February he and Adkins were talking
about work when he asked Adkins what was going on in
the plant. Adkins said, "I don't know, but I think some
of your co-workers, they will try to bring the union in.
Early or later, I will know who they are and then I will
know what I have to do."°
Adkins denies the alleged conversations with Dodds,
Torres, and Vasquez. He also testified that, at the time
he laid off Guzman and Gutierrez, he had no knowledge
of their sentiments regarding the Union nor did he have
any knowledge of any union activity prior to the receipt
of the notification of the filing of the representation peti-
tion According to him, Goldstein told him a petition
had been filed and that they were not to question em-
ployees regarding their union activities or support, that
they were to stay out of it Goldstein said he had been
through it before and that Adkins was not to discuss the
Union with anyone.
Goldstein testified that Respondent has no written
layoff policy, that he established the layoff policy and
administered it as he developed and framed it. According
to him, he used a combination of factors in selecting per-
sons to be laid off—efficiency, performance, and seniori-
ty to some degree where it could be applied. In the
normal layoff situation, his selection follows the produc-
tion flow. However, he testified, in the layoffs which
began in August he more or less had to cut the size of
the work force and yet try to maintain the most efficient
crew possible Thus, the principal determinant was the
employee's ability Selections were made so as to achieve
a basic plantwide reduction. To the extent that seniority
was considered in classifications such as welders or bend-
ers, department seniority was used. In other areas, de-
pending on the flexibility of the employee, plantwide se-
niority was considered to some extent.
Goldstein also testified that the principal factors he
considered were efficiency and rate of pay. All things
9 Dodds is chairman of the In-plant union committee and has been
since May
10 Vasquez was a member of the Union's negotiating grievance com-
mittee from sometime in May until 2 or 3 weeks prior to the hearing
Torres has also been a member of that committee since its inception
sometime in May
being equal, he tried to keep a senior person but could
not do that in cases where there was a great disparity of
either production or payroll. Being marginally profitable,
Respondent just could not afford to carry someone
whose daily output was definitely less than other people
working at the same job." For example, Adelaido
Robles, who had worked since 1975 as a collector-
welder and an assembler-welder, was laid off in Decem-
ber without regard to seniority because his work had
started to slip.
According to Goldstein, he initially tried to lay off the
last people hired, in May, June, and July at the tail end
of the production season. He did not consult Adkins in
this regard. He merely told him who was being laid off.
Then, as the cuts got deeper, the analysis of the individ-
ual employee became a bit more critical because he was
trying to compare very closely who was the most effi-
cient employee since, with the smaller crew, Respondent
could not afford anything other than maximum output
per person. At this point, he did discuss the selections
with Adkins. According to him, basically he Just present-
ed to Adkins the names of the persons that he felt should
be laid off and asked if he had any overriding reason
why any of them should not be let go. He did consult
Adkins as to Gutierrez, stating that his analysis was that
Gutierrez was welding fewer parts per day than the
other collector-welders and asked if Adkins disagreed
Adkins said, no, that he had spoken to Gutierrez regard-
ing his production and then proceeded to relate two con-
versations he had with Gutierrez relative to increasing
his production.
Goldstein admits that he did not consult Adkins as to
Guzman since he was eliminating that particular job
One of the considerations in eliminating the parts movers
classification was a desire to keep the more skilled em-
ployees. One way of keeping the welders busy was to let
them take up an hour of their time doing their own parts
moving, and to have another employee, Enrique
Guzman, who had previously assisted Salvador Guzman
in parts moving work as a parts mover for about 4 hours
a day.
Adkins corroborates that it was Goldstein's decision as
to who would be laid off, but testified that he regularly
made suggestions. According to him, usually if it was a
nonproduction type job, the layoff was strictly by senior-
ity, but if it was something where performance was in-
volved, then they pulled the work records and went ac-
cording to performance. According to him, a parts
mover is not a production job 12 Adkins testified that he
seldom made suggestions as to whom was let go, rather
he would try to make a choice as to who to keep; but if
it had been determined that a certain number of persons
were to be laid off, then that number was laid off He
could not influence that basic decision In the gray zone,
" Goldstein testified that he is aware of the production of all employ-
ees because he collected the job tickets daily and has read them for 11
years on a daily basis The job tickets do not directly indicate the quality
of work However, It has been his practice to make spot checks as to
quality
12 Adkins testified that at Respondent a production job was one on
which you kept records as to actual output They kept no records on
how many parts the parts mover moved
EAGLE HEADERS 1489
where one employee may have merits over another em-
ployee, he could sometimes influence those decisions.
Occasionally his recommendation was accepted but in
many cases it was not.
Adkins testified that at the time Gutierrez was laid off
there were three collector-welders, Benjamin Vasquez,
Raymond Cisneros, and Gutierrez. Vasquez was the best
of the three and Gutierrez was the worst as to produc-
tion. Adkins also testified that he talked to Gutierrez
twice regarding his production; the last time was about 2
weeks prior to his layoff and the other occasion was
probably 2 months.
Goldstein testified that there has never been any auto-
matic right of recall in Respondent's history, but they
have rehired employees from time to time based on their
past performance. It was his decision as to whether a
laid-off employee would be rehired. Goldstein also testi-
fied that he hired former employee Mario Munoz to do
collector-welding a couple of months after Gutierrez'
layoff. Munoz was only hired for the heavy season, 2-1/2
to 3 months. After that, he was laid off. Goldstein fur-
ther testified that when the need for collector-work
picked up, he tried a couple of times to reach Gutierrez
but was unsuccessful. So when Munoz came in, he
simply rehired him since he was a good, experienced
worker. He also hired him at a lower wage rate than Gu-
tierrez had been earning. Adkins testified that Munoz did
not work full time as a collector-welder but did a
number of other jobs also.
Another welder was hired between January 21 and
August 18, during the peak season. However, he did no
collector-welding and was laid off shortly after his hire
date as the season ended.
When asked why he decided to let a welder go on
January 21, just before the beginning of the peak season,
Goldstein testified that he had three people to do the
work of two and Gutierrez was the slowest one. Accord-
ing to him, he had no indication that very shortly he
would need an additional collector-welder inasmuch as
they were not meeting the sales projections forecast for
the year;" so there was no point in continuing to stock-
pile headers inasmuch as they are the easiest things Re-
spondent makes and are the easiest to stockpile.
There were no layoffs after January. February basical-
ly begins the selling season, so towards the end of Febru-
ary Respondent started to build production back up in
anticipation of the 3- or 4-month peak season"
The General Counsel contends that if Goldstein had
really wanted to contact Gutierrez when he needed to
hire another collector-welder, he could have contacted
13 According to Goldstein, these projections were based on the expec-
tion that Herbert Goldstein, one of the top salesmen in the Industry,
would obtain substantial increases in sales. However, he was hit in the
eye with a tennis ball sometime in late October or early November, an
accident which detached his retina and required several surgeries be-
tween then and the end of December
14 January and February are considered relatively slow months;
March, April, and May are considered the best months; and June and
July are considered good months. August tends to be slower and there is
a definite decline in October and September. November and December
may be good months depending upon the weather and the condition of
the economy. The best months are March through May. The worst
months are August and September and maybe February.
him through his brother who was also in Respondent's
employ. Goldstein testified that he does not recall that
he was aware at that time that Gutierrez had a brother in
Respondent's employ.
When Gutierrez was questioned as to whether, in the
2-month period before he was laid off, Adkins talked to
him about his production, he testified that Adkins called
in the welders in groups of three and told them if they
did not increase production, what happened to Adelaido
Robles was going to happen to them. He denies that
Adkins ever had a private conversation with him regard-
ing his production; and testified that at the time Adkins
spoke to him, two port welders were present. Although
Gutierrez testified as to the amount of his daily produc-
tion, he did not dispute the testimony that he was the
least productive of the three collector-welders. Since job
tickets are retained for only about 6 weeks, no documen-
tation of the relative production of these employees was
available. Goldstein testified that, primarily for costing
purposes, he maintained a production record on a spot-
eheck basis whereby he would chart a different group of
operations. Those records are also no longer in existence.
B. Conclusion
1. The alleged unlawful statements
I credit Dodds as to his conversations with Adkins. I
found him to be an honest, reliable witness who was en-
deavoring to tell the truth. In this regard, I note that de-
spite the questioning designed to determine if he could
be more precise as to timing, and despite the obvious ad-
vantage to the General Counsel's case if he had firmly
placed the first conversation with Adkins prior to the
layoffs, he refrained from doing so. This is not consistent
with a fabrication of testimony designed to support the
position of the General Counsel and the Charging Party.
I also credit Vasquez as to the statement made to him by
Adkins. This occurred around the time of the Dodds-
Trane-Adkins conversation—a time when Adkins did not
seem adverse to expressing opinions to employees re-
garding union activities if they brought up the subject.
Contrary to Respondent's urgings, I do not find that,
during the course of a preelection campaign, an assump-
tion by Adkins that Vasquez' question as to what was
going on in the plant referred to the campaign was so
unreasonable as to require a conclusion that Vasquez'
testimony regarding his response lacked credence.
However, I do not credit Torres that prior to the lay-
offs, Adkins asked him if he knew that Leonard Hicks,
Salvador, and Delgadillo" were involved in the Union.
I find unreliable Torres' testimony as to the timing of
this alleged conversation. Thus, he testified that he
learned of the union activity from Dodds. Yet Dodds
testified that he learned of the union activity through a
conversation with Adkins. Dodds first testified that the
conversation was in February. Then he testified that it
was in late January or early February. In view of this
testimony, I find it unlikely that the conversation oc-
curred prior to January 14. I also note that Torres first
" Hicks and Delgadillo are welders in Respondent's employ.
1490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
testified that the conversation occurred "in the beginning
and middle of January." In clarification, he then testified
that, at the time, Gutierrez and Guzman were still em-
ployed by Respondent, that the conversation occurred
during the first half of January. Yet he could not recall
whether the first union meeting he attended was before
or after they were laid off. Further, I note that, accord-
ing to Torres, Adkins asked if he knew that Leonard
Hicks, Salvador, and Delgadillo were involved in the
Union. Yet, according to Vasquez' testimony, in Febru-
ary, Adkins made a statement to him which indicated
that he did not yet know who was trying to bring the
Union into the plant.
In view of my credibility findings, I find that Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by soliciting
Dodds to inform him regarding the union activities of
other employees and by creating the impression of sur-
veillance of employees' union activities when he told
Dodds he knew the address where the union meeting
was held. I also find that, in context, Trane's statement,
that he would fire them all, could only be interpreted as
referring to union supporters. Therefore, Adkins' re-
sponse that Respondent had gotten rid of two of them—
Rafael and Salvador—was coercive in that it conveyed
the impression that they had been laid off because of
their union activities Accordingly, I find that by this
statement Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
As to the statement made to Vasquez, contrary to Re-
spondent's argument, I find that such a statement would
reasonably be construed by an employee as constituting a
threat of reprisals against union activists in Respondent's
employ, and that Adkins intended to, and did, convey
that impression. Accordingly, I find that Respondent
thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Contrary to
Respondent's contention, it is immaterial that the union
discussions were initiated by Vasquez and by Dodds on
one occasion. Cardio Data System, 264 NLRB 37 (1982).
I also reject Respondent's argument that these statements
were isolated or de minimis and require no remedy, inas-
much as Respondent and the Union subsequently negoti-
ated a collective-bargaining agreement. Holladay Park
Hospital, 262 NLRB 278 (1982).
2. The layoffs
The General Counsel contends that Guzman and Gu-
tierrez were selected for layoff because of their union ac-
tivities Respondent contends it had no knowledge of the
union activity prior to receiving notification of the filing
of the representation petition Thus, the initial issue is
whether the evidence is sufficient to establish that Re-
spondent had knowledge of the union activity in general
and of the activity of Guzman and Gutierrez in particu-
lar prior thereto The testimony of Goldstein and Adkins
denying knowledge is supported by the evidence that the
activity took place away from Respondent's premises
and was so selective and secretive that employees who
had become leaders in the Union by May had no knowl-
edge, at that time, of the union activities.
Hence, the critical question is whether Adkins' state-
ment to Dodds and Trane establishes knowledge, and un-
lawful motivation as well I find that the statement does
not establish knowledge at the time of the layoffs.
Adkins' statement is equally as susceptible to a conclu-
sion that he was expressing delight that the Respondent
had laid off two employees who were subsequently
found to have been union activists as it is to be the con-
clusion that they had been laid off unlawfully. Accord-
ingly, I find that the General Counsel has failed to estab-
lish that, at the time of the layoffs, Respondent had
knowledge of the union activities Further, in this cir-
cumstance and in view of Respondent's legitimate rea-
sons for a layoff, the General Counsel's failure to estab-
lish that Respondent had definitive policies or practices
which it violated regarding the selection of employees to
be laid off and the recall of laid-off employees; the ab-
sence of any evidence that Gutierrez engaged in any ac-
tivities different in kind from that of a number of other
employees, the prior layoff of senior employees; the lim-
ited nature of the unfair labor practices found herein; the
fact that Goldstein, not Adkins, made the selections; the
absence of unlawful conduct by Goldstein; and the ab-
sence of evidence to indicate that, but for Gutierrez'
union activities, Adkins would have argued for his reten-
tion, I find that the General Counsel has failed to estab-
lish a prima facie case that the layoffs of Guzman and
Gutierrez were unlawfully motivated. Accordingly, I
find that these layoffs were not violative of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 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 mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By soliciting employees to inform regarding the
union activities of fellow employees, by telling employ-
ees that fellow employees had been laid off because of
their union activities, by creating the impression that the
union activities of employees were under surveillance by
Respondent, and by threatening employees with reprisals
because of their union activities, Respondent has commit-
ted unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act
4. The above-described unfair labor practices are
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5 Respondent has not violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
of the Act by laying off Salvador Guzman and Rafael
Gutierrez, nor has Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act except as found herein.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that Respond-
ent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action in order to effectuate the purposes of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed"
6 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Continued
EAGLE HEADERS 1491
ORDER
The Respondent, So-Cal Products, Inc. d/b/a Eagle
Headers,' Canoga Park, California, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall .
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Soliciting employees to inform Respondent regard-
ing the union activities of fellow employees.
(b) Telling employees that fellow employees were laid
off because of their union activities. .
(c) Creating the impression of surveillance of employ-
ees' union activities.
(d) Threatening employees with reprisals because they
engaged in union activity.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
-, 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Post at its facility in Canoga Park, California,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix.""
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 31, after being signed by Respond-
ent's authoriled representative, shall be posted by Re:
spondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60
consecutive days in Conspicuous places including all
places where notices • to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this, Order what steps Respondent
has taken to comply.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed in-
sofar as it alleges that the layoff of Salvad6r Guzman
and Rafael Gutierrez was violative of Section '8(a)(1) and
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, .
" f 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 "Pasted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals.,Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board"
(3) of the Act and insofar as it alleges that Respondent
has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in any respect
other than found herein
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States•Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relation's Act and has or-
dered- us to post and.abide by this notice...
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights. .
-To organize '
To form, Join, or assist any union
'To bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protec-
tion
To-choose not to engage in any of these protect-
, ed concerted activities.
In recognition of these rights, we notify our employees
that.
WE WILL NOT solicit employees to inform us regard-
ing the union activities of fellow employees
WE WILL NOT tell our employees that fellow employ-
ees were li •d off because they had engaged in union ac-
tivities.
WE WILL NOT create the impression of surveillance of
the union activities of our empl6yees.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with reprisals be-
cause they engaged in union activities. .
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed-them by Section 7 of the Act.
SO-CAL PRODUCTS, INC. D/B/A EAGLE •
HEADERS