U.S. Web, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 20, 1998

327 N.L.R.B. 132 (N.L.R.B. 1998)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 132
U.S. Web, Inc. and James Radosta. Case 29–CA–
20063
November 20, 1998
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FOX, LIEBMAN, AND BRAME
On September 18, 1997, Administrative Law Judge
Raymond P. Green issued the attached decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and
the General Counsel and the Charging Party each filed
briefs in support of the judge’s decision.
On June 17, 1998, the Board issued an order remand-
ing the proceeding to the judge for additional credibility
resolutions on certain testimony that he failed to address
in his decision and for further analysis on the credited
facts regarding whether the Respondent violated the Act
as alleged in the complaint. On August 3, 1998, the
judge issued the attached supplemental decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and
the Charging Party filed a brief in support of the judge’s
supplemental decision.
The Board has considered the decisions in light of the
exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the
judge’s rulings, findings,1 and conclusions2 and to adopt
the recommended Order.

1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility
findings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an adminis-
trative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance
of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Stan-
dard 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 In adopting the judge’s finding that the Respondent’s owner, John
Busa, coercively interrogated Charging Party Radosta, we stress that
Busa’s questioning of Radosta about organizing the shop occurred in
the presence of other employees and effectively served as a harbinger
of Radosta’s unlawful discharge the following month. We agree with
the judge that, given Radosta’s eventual fate, the employees who were
present during this incident were not likely to miss Busa’s not too sub-
tle message that the Respondent would retaliate against employees
suspected of union activities.
Contrary to his colleagues and the judge, Member Brame concludes
that the Respondent did not violate Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act by Busa’s
alleged interrogation of Radosta. In April 1996, Busa asked Radosta, in
the presence of other employees, if Radosta had been talking to Union
Representative Calderone. Busa said that he had just received a phone
call from Calderone, who mistakenly thought Busa was a unit em-
ployee and solicited him to sign a card. As interrogation is not per se
unlawful, “[t]o fall within the ambit of § 8(a)(1), either the words them-
selves or the context in which they are used must suggest an element of
coercion or interference.” Midwest Stock Exchange v. NLRB, 635 F.2d
1255 (7th Cir. 1980), cited by the Board with approval in Rossmore
House, 269 NLRB 1176, 1177 (1984), affd. sub. nom. Hotel Employees
Local 11 v. NLRB, 760 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1985) (traditional test is
“whether under all of the circumstances the interrogation reasonably
tends to restrain, coerce, or interfere with rights guaranteed by the
Act”); see Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1964) (relevant crite-
ria include history of employer, hostility, nature of information sought,
identity of questioner, place and method of interrogation, truthfulness
of reply). In this case, Radosta was known by the Respondent to be a
union adherent and Busa questioned him about the possible resumption
of union activities in a joking manner that was free of any threats or
promises, or coercion. Although the judge ultimately found unlawful
interrogation here based on the Respondent’s discriminatory termina-
tion of Busa 6 weeks later, Member Brame does not find that this brief
and isolated conversation remained so fresh in employees’ minds for
that length of time that they would conclude, in the judge’s words, that
“interrogation may soon be followed by retaliation.” Accordingly, he
would dismiss this allegation of the complaint.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, U.S. Web, Inc., Huntington,
New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Order.

Kevin Kitchen, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Clifford S. Bart, Esq., for the Respondent.
Stuart Lichten, Esq., for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RAYMOND P. GREEN, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was tried in Brooklyn, New York, on June 5 and 6 and
July 8, 1997. The charge was filed on June 13, 1996, and the
complaint was issued on September 20, 1996. In pertinent part,
the complaint alleges that (a) in or about early May 1996, the
Respondent by its owner, John Busa, interrogated employees
about their sympathies for Local 1, Amalgamated Lithogra-
phers of America, and (b) discharged James Redosta for dis-
criminatory reasons.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed, I
make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent admits and I find that it is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS
The Respondent is in the printing business and its specialty
is magazine and direct mail inserts. This is, according to Busa,
a high volume type of printing operation. During the entirety
of its operation, the employees of the Company have not been
represented by any union.
Busa is the Company’s founder, owner, and president. At
the time of the events here, Craig Stoller was in charge of the
printing operations and Richard Rahmer was a foreman. Be-
cause of the Company’s growth, Richard Azzoli was hired in
January 1996 as the general manager to bring standard business
practices to the Company’s operations. At the time of the hear-
ing, the Company employed over 200 employees.
Redosta was hired by the Company on October 1, 1991, as a
four color process stripper. This is a craft job that requires a
great deal of skill and experience. At the same time, it should
be noted that this type of skill is becoming less and less used in
the printing industry as computers are increasingly being intro-
duced which enable people with lesser skills to do the same
functions. This was acknowledged by Redosta, who has taken
courses to familiarize himself with computer skills relevant to
the printing industry. The evidence shows that the number of

327 NLRB No. 27
U.S. WEB, INC. 133
stripper jobs at the Company has gone down and will continue
to go down in the future.
According to Redosta, in the spring of 1993, he contacted
Joe Calderone, a representative of Local 1, Amalgamated Li-
thographers of America, and thereafter solicited other employ-
ees to sign union authorization cards.
On September 17, 1993, Local 1 filed a petition in Case 29–
RC–8222 seeking an election in a unit of the Company’s litho-
graphic production employees. On December 2, 1993, an elec-
tion was held and the Union lost. As no objections were filed,
the results of the election were certified in mid-December 1993.

Redosta continued to work after the election until March
1994 when he was discharged. On April 21, 1994, the Union
filed a charge alleging his discharge as an unfair labor practice
and this was amended on June 15, 1994. A complaint based on
that charge was issued by the Regional Director on July 27,
1994, and alleged among other things that the Respondent dis-
criminatorily laid off Redosta. Subsequently, the complaint
was withdrawn after Redosta was offered reemployment.
I have no intention of relitigating the events that took place
and that were the basis on which the Regional Office issued the
prior complaint in Case 29–CA–18163. And although the fact
that the complaint was issued is relevant to this case, I make no
findings or conclusions as to whether the allegations of that
complaint had merit. I note that the Respondent denied the
allegations thereof and asserted that Redosta had been dis-
charged for cause.
With respect to Redosta’s union activity, the Company as-
serts that it had no knowledge of such activity either in connec-
tion with the prior case or with respect to the present case. And
although Redosta asserted that he was actively involved in
campaigning for Local 1, both in 1993 and more recently in
1996, there was no corroborating evidence to support this asser-
tion.
In any event, in October 1994, Redosta received a phone call
from Busa who asked if he would return to work. Redosta
agreed and on October 28. he began to work on the night shift.
He went back to work as a stripper and did the same kind of
work that he did before.
In connection with the recall of Redosta, Busa testified that
he rehired him over the objection of Supervisor Craig Stoller
and did so, after discussions with counsel, in an effort to cut off
any potential backpay liability.
One other point has to be made before we come to the events
that led to Redosta’s second discharge on May 31, 1996. And
that is that Stoller and Redosta have not gotten along since
1992; long before any union ever appeared on the scene. In this
regard, the evidence shows that Redosta found it difficult to
take direction from Stoller who was promoted over him, but
who did not come from a “stripper background.” This was
acknowledged by Redosta, who testified that he didn’t get
along with Stoller and that their philosophies about printing
were different. Redosta stated that he felt that Stoller’s ap-
proach to prep work was not correct and that he told him so.
He conceded that he sometimes would not follow the directions
laid down by Stoller unless Stoller made an issue of it. Simi-
larly, Dale Hunt, a former employee in the stripping depart-
ment, testified that although Redosta was, in his opinion, an
excellent stripper, he had problems with Stoller which preceded
the union activities. In Hunt’s opinion, the problems between
Redosta and Stoller were long standing and were not related to
the Union.
Redosta testified that at some point in December 1995 (more
than a year after his return to work) Union Representative Cal-
derone called him and said that the Union wanted his assistance
to make another attempt at organizing the employees. Redosta
asserts that he agreed, and that he supplied Calderone with a list
of the current employees.
According to Redosta, in April 1996, Busa came into the
prep department and asked him in the presence of other work-
ers if Redosta had been talking to Calderone about organizing
the shop. Redosta states that when he said no, Busa said that
Calderone must have a screwed up list because he had just re-
ceived a call from Calderone who asked him to sign a union
card. This is essentially corroborated by Hunt. About a month
later, on May 31, 1996, Redosta was discharged.
Busa originally testified that it was in October 1994 that he
received a phone call from Calderone who asked him to sign a
card and that he told some of the employees in the shop about
this event. Busa testified that he thought this was funny and that
he laughed about it when he related the conversation to some of
the employees. (In fact, it is sort of funny unless you happened
to be Redosta.)
Nevertheless, when pressed as to when this conversation oc-
curred, Busa finally acknowledged that the telephone call from
Calderone occurred in the spring of 1996 and before he decided
to approve the decision to discharge Redosta. Notwithstanding
the someone (sic) unusual nature of this conversation, Busa
could only place it as occurring sometime between January and
May 1996.
Obviously the timing of the phone conversation between
Busa and Calderone is important and it is my conclusion that it
took place in April 1996 as testified to by Redosta and Hunt. If
the phone call had been made in 1994, as initially asserted by
Busa, its relationship and possible connection to Redosta’s
discharge would be pretty remote. However, if it occurred in
April 1996, this is quite another matter. As I conclude that
Busa spoke to Calderone in April 1996, the General Counsel
has shown primae facie, a connection between Busa’s knowl-
edge of the union organizing activity; his suspicion that Re-
dosta was involved, and ultimately the discharge of Redosta
which occurred a relatively short time thereafter.
The Respondent argued that Redosta and Stoller had not got-
ten along for many years; that Stoller objected to Redosta being
rehired in 1994, and that at various times thereafter he tried to
convince Busa to discharge him. According to the Respondent,
Stoller’s objections to Redosta were (a) that his work was too
slow and (b) that he ignored procedures established by Stoller
for the prep department. As to the latter, Redosta is accused of
failing to follow and enter the proper codes whereby those on
the next shift can pick up and continue his work. He is also
accused of refusing to use a certain template procedure which
was initiated by Stoller which he insisted that Redosta use in
preference to Redosta’s own and more traditional way of using
a T-square. Busa testified that from the time of Redosta’s re-
hire, he refused to accede to Stoller’s discharge recommenda-
tions essentially because he wanted to avoid another lawsuit.
Busa claims that he finally and reluctantly gave in, in May
1996, after his general manager, Azzoli, and supervisors, Stol-
ler and Rahmer, convinced him that Redosta was doing a poor
job. According to Busa, Stoller brought him some records to
show that Redosta was working too slowly. He states that this
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 134
occurred about a week before Redosta was discharged. (And
therefore, after the phone conversation between Busa and Un-
ion Representative Calderone.)
Richard Rahmer testified that when Redosta came back to
work in October 1994, Redosta was put on the night shift and
worked under his supervision until mid-1995. Rahmer testified
that he agreed with Stoller’s desire to fire Redosta. Rahmer
stated that Redosta took longer on jobs than anyone else and
that when he talked to Redosta about this, Redosta disputed the
assertion. He also testified that Redosta wanted to continue to
use a T-square for layout work and didn’t want to use Stoller’s
new grid procedure which used templates. Although Redosta
conceded that he preferred to use his T-square, Rahmer ac-
knowledged that Redosta finally came around to using the new
grid system. Rahmer also testified that when Redosta first
came back to work, he used an old fashioned code for jobs
which made for confusion for the people down the line. Ac-
cording to Rahmer, Redosta was reluctant to change but that he
did change after about a month.
In September 1995, Redosta was moved to the day shift
which was supervised by Foreman Tom Pasaloqua. There is no
evidence that Pasaloqua had any complaints about Redosta’s
work, either as to the way he was following procedures or with
his production pace.
My sense of Rahmer’s testimony was that although he felt
that Redosta continued to be a slow worker as compared to
other strippers, the problems with the templates and the codes
were fixed within a reasonably short period time after he re-
turned to work. Thus, during a substantial period of time be-
fore Redosta’s discharge, it seems that there was no problem
with his following the required procedures. And if his work
was slow (an assertion denied by Redosta) this was no different
than how he always worked and there is nothing in writing to
show that this was a problem as far as the Company was con-
cerned. That is, Redosta never received any written warnings
about his production1 and there is no documentation in his per-
sonnel file to indicate that his rate of production was an issue.
In an attempt to prove that his work was slow, the Respon-
dent introduced some production records representing a total of
seven jobs that Redosta worked on during the period from
January to May 1997. As Redosta worked on between 30 to 40
jobs per week, or over 700 jobs during this period of time, the
proffered records, which were culled by the Respondent, were
not, in my opinion, sufficiently representative of Redosta’s
work. Moreover, these records are not particularly persuasive.
At least two of the jobs (jobs 9618949 and 9619119) were done
in the same or less time than comparable jobs worked on by
other employees and Redosta had reasonable explanations as to
why some of the other cited jobs, took more time. For exam-
ple, job 9619193 was a two-sided instead of a one-sided job.
As noted above, there was nothing in Redosta’s personnel
file that would indicate that the Respondent was unduly con-
cerned about his production rate at any time during his em-
ployment. If he worked slowly (and this is denied by him) his
work seems to have been no different than what it had been
from the start. In this regard, I note that the evidence shows
that there was another employee, Eli Negron, whose evalua-
tions, unlike those of Redosta’s, specifically indicated that Ne-

1 Redosta did receive two warnings regarding mistakes—one on July
19, 1995, and the other on March 18, 1996. These did not, however,
involve any productivity issues.
gron had a problem with productivity. And yet he remained
employed by the Company.
In my opinion, if productivity became a real issue insofar as
Redosta, it became one after Calderone had the telephone con-
versation with Busa. It is my opinion that what had been a non-
problem before, was now investigated in an attempt to “prove”
that Redosta’s productivity was low and that there was a good
“nondiscriminatory” reason for getting rid of him.
In my opinion, had it not been for the phone call from Cal-
derone, Redosta, who at that time was following company pro-
cedures, would not have been discharged. As such, I conclude
that his discharge was motivated by antiunion considerations
and therefore constituted a violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act. I also conclude, based on Redosta’s credited testimony,
that when Busa came into the prep department and asked if
Redosta had been talking to Calderone about organizing the
shop, that this constituted unlawful interrogation within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discharging James Redosta, the Respondent, U.S.
Web, Inc., violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
2. By interrogating Redosta about his union activities, the
Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. By the aforesaid conduct the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
The Respondent, having discriminatorily discharged an em-
ployee, must offer him reinstatement and make him whole for
any loss of earnings and other benefits, computed on a quarterly
basis from date of discharge to date of proper offer of rein-
statement, less any net interim earnings, as prescribed in F. W.
Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as com-
puted in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173
(1987).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended2
ORDER
The Respondent, U.S. Web, Inc., Huntington, New York, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any em-
ployee for joining or engaging in activity on behalf of Local 1,
Amalgamated Lithographers of America, or any other labor
organization.
(b) Interrogating employees about their union sympathies
and membership.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2 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.
U.S. WEB, INC. 135
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer James
Redosta, full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no
longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or privileges previ-
ously enjoyed and make him whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against
him in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the deci-
sion.
(b) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from
its files any reference to the unlawful discharge and notify the
employee in writing that this has been done and that the dis-
charge will not be used against him in any way.
(c) 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 and reports, and all other records necessary to
analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Or-
der.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cility in Huntington, New York, copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”3 Copies of the notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 29, after being signed by
the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for
60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices
are not 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 in-
volved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and
mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current em-
ployees and former employees employed by the Respondent at
any time since July 14, 1996.
(e) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent has taken to comply.

APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated 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

3 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.”
To choose not to engage in any of these protected concerted
activities

WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against
any of you for joining or supporting Local 1, Amalgamated
Lithographers of America.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees about their union
sympathies, activities, or membership.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Or-
der, offer James Redosta, full reinstatement to his former job
or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or
privileges previously enjoyed and WE WILL make him whole
for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from his
discharge, less any net interim earnings, plus interest.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Or-
der, remove from our files any reference to the unlawful dis-
charge of James Redosta and WE WILL, within 3 days thereaf-
ter, notify him in writing that this has been done and that any
such references will not be used against him in any way.
U.S. WEB, INC.

Kevin Kitchen, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Clifford S. Bart, Esq., for the Respondent.
Stuart Lichten, Esq., for the Charging Party.
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
I issued a decision in this case on September 18, 1997, find-
ing that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act by coercively interrogating James Radosta about his union
activities and by discharging him for discriminatory reasons.
On June 17, 1998, the Board remanded this matter to me to
make further findings of fact and conclusions of law. After
reviewing again the record in this matter, I make the following
findings:
1. In April 1996, the Respondent’s owner, John Busa, came
into the prep department, and directing his comments to James
Radosta, asked him, in the presence of other employees, if Ra-
dosta had been talking to Union Representative Calderone
about organizing the shop. Busa said that he had just received a
phone call from Calderone who, mistaking him for an em-
ployee, asked Busa if he was interested in signing a union card.
This transaction, as testified to by Radosta, was credibly cor-
roborated by employee Dale Hunt.1 While the evidence shows
that Busa asked Radosta this question in a joking manner, I do
not credit the testimony of Busa and Christopher Bagliore that
Busa did not direct the question toward Radosta or that Busa
did not specifically ask Radosta if he had been talking to a un-
ion agent. In evaluating credibility, I noted in the original deci-
sion that Busa initially testified that this transaction took place
in 1994, which if true, would have substantially diminished its
importance. But when pressed as to when this occurred, Busa
finally admitted that the event occurred at or about the time
related by Radosta and Hunt and therefore shortly before the
decision was made to discharge Radosta. In this regard, Busa’s
changed testimony as to the timing of the event, not only
1 On the whole, I found Radosta to be a credible witness. I thought
he was straightforward in his testimony and I was impressed with his
demeanor.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 136
tended to diminish his credibility but also tended to bolster the
General Counsel’s case in that it showed that the decision to
discharge Radosta took place soon after Busa became aware
that the Union was again attempting to organize his employees.
2. Whether or not Busa was aware of Radosta’s union activ-
ity in 1993 regarding the election held in December of that
year, it is clear that by the summer of 1994 he could not avoid
the conclusion that Radosta was a union supporter. Thus, on
July 27, 1994, the Regional Director had issued a complaint
alleging that Radosta’s earlier layoff was motivated by his un-
ion activity. Irrespective of the merits of that complaint, any
reasonable person receiving the complaint, would be forced to
opine that Radosta was a union supporter. Thus, when Busa, in
April 1996, received the phone call from Union Representative
Calderone, it is more than probable that his first thoughts must
have turned to Radosta, whom Busa had previously reinstated
after receiving the prior unfair labor practice complaint.
3. I credit the testimony of Radosta that in or about April
1995, he had a conversation with Busa wherein he told Busa
that he would drop his charges against the Company and where
Busa asked if he (Radosta) would be involved with the Union
again.
4. The evidence shows that in September 1995, Radosta was
moved to the day shift, under the supervision of Tom Pasalo-
qua, after having worked for a period of time on the night shift
under Supervisor Richard Rahmer. Any testimony by Rahmer
to the effect that Radosta was transferred from the night shift
because Rahmer no longer wanted him on the night shift and
that Rahmer complained to other supervisors about work that
Radosta passed on to the night shift after his transfer, is viewed
by me as being unreliable. As I pointed out in my initial deci-
sion, Radosta agrees that for a period of time when he started to
work with Rahmer in October 1994, there was a difficulty as
they disagreed as to how Radosta should perform his work.
(Radosta insisted on using a T-square and also was reluctant to
change his use of certain codes.) Nevertheless, Rahmer con-
ceded that Radosta came around to using the new grid system
and therefore this no longer became a bone of contention be-
tween these two people. Rahmer also testified that Radosta
changed his habit of using old fashioned codes which had
tended to make for confusion for the people who worked on
Radosta’s jobs after he completed his work on them. Rahmer’s
testimony was that although Radosta was, at first, reluctant to
change, he did change after about a month on the job; thus,
sometime in November 1994.
5. The Respondent asserted that the hiring of Richard Azzoli
as general manager played a large and nondiscriminatory role
in the decision to discharge Radosta. Essentially, it is asserted
that Azzoli was concerned with productivity and that he pushed
for the discharge of Radosta when he became convinced that
Radosta was a slow and unproductive worker. I simply do not
believe that this is the case. Radosta credibly challenged the
evidence produced by the Respondent that he was slower than
his colleagues and the documentary evidence produced by the
Respondent was not viewed by me as being particularly repre-
sentative or persuasive. The record convinced me that Radosta
was working at a rate that was unchanged since his rehiring in
1994 and that no issue was made of his productivity until after
Busa received the phone call from Union Representative Cal-
derone, in April 1996. Thus, the record shows that Radosta,
whom the Respondent claims was fired in large part because of
his low productivity, received no warnings or reprimands re-
garding his productivity, whereas another employee, Eli Ne-
gron, received a comment on his evaluation regarding poor
productivity and retained his job. (Radosta’s evaluation had no
mention of any alleged poor productivity.)
6. I credit Radosta’s testimony that at the time of his dis-
charge, he was told by Stoller that he was being let go because
work was slow.
7. In my opinion, the General Counsel has made out a primae
facie case under the test of Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083
(1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455
U.S. 989 (1982). The General Counsel has shown credible
evidence that Radosta was involved in union activity in 1993
and resumed his union activity in 1996. As a complaint, previ-
ously issued against the Respondent (and settled) ad alleged
that the Respondent had laid off Radosta because of his union
activity, it is reasonable to conclude that Busa must have
reached the opinion that Radosta was involved in union activ-
ity. The evidence shows that in April 1996 (and not in 1994)
Busa received a phone call from Union Agent Calderone which
indicated to him that union activity was resuming at his com-
pany. As a consequence of this phone call, Busa no doubt was
reminded of Radosta’s former union activity and went out into
the shop and asked Radosta if he had been talking to Calderone
about organizing the shop. I am convinced that it was only
after the phone call from Calderone that the Company began an
effort to attempt to document Radosta’s alleged inefficiency
and that this was done to provide a pretext for his discharge.
The assertions that Radosta was not following company proce-
dures was effectively negated by the testimony of Rahmer who
stated that his differences with Radosta regarding methods had
been corrected by about November 1994.2
8. All witnesses agreed that when Busa mentioned his phone
conversation with Calderone, he did so in a joking manner.
And had this case involved only this one incident, I would rec-
ommend that the interrogation allegation be dismissed either as
being noncoercive or de minimus. However, as it was soon
followed by the unlawful discharge of Radosta, it is my opinion
that the interrogation must also be viewed as being coercive as
other employees could reasonably come to the conclusion that
interrogation may soon be followed by retaliation. Rossmore
House, 269 NLRB 1176 (1984), enfd. sub nom. Hotel & Res-
taurant Employees Local 11 v. NLRB, 760 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir.
1985).
In conclusion, I reaffirm my earlier decision for the reasons
stated therein and for the reasons set forth in this Supplemental
Decision.

2 Had Radosta been discharged in October 1994, at a time when he
disregarded supervisory instructions, such discharge would clearly have
been justified. And if Radosta is reinstated, he should keep in mind
that it his responsibility to follow the directions and orders of his super-
visors.