Parker Seal Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 22, 1978

239 N.L.R.B. 1023 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

PARKER SEAL COMPANY
Parker Seal Company, A Division of Parker-Hannifin
Corporation and Norma N. Gonzalez. Case 23-CA-
6887
December 22, 1978
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND MURPHY
On September 6, 1978, Administrative Law Judge
Claude R. Wolfe issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief, and the Employer
filed a brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
order that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed in its entirety.
X The General Counsel has excepted to certain credibility findings made
by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibili-
ty unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces
us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91
NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
CLAUDE R WOLFE. Administrative Law Judge: This case
was heard before me in McAllen, Texas, on July 24, 1978,
pursuant to a complaint issued April 19, 1978, subsequent
to charges filed on January 23, 1978. The complaint alleges
that the Respondent discharged Norma N. Gonzalez be-
cause her sister Dominga Anzaldua had engaged in union
activities. The Respondent timely denied the commission
of any unfair labor practices.
Upon the entire record,' including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses as they testified, and after due
consideration of the post-trial briefs, I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. JURISDICTION
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that
the Respondent is an Ohio corporation with a place of
business at McAllen, Texas, where it is engaged in the busi-
ness of manufacturing elastomeric seals. During the 12
months immediately preceding the issuance of the com-
plaint, a representative period, the Respondent in the
course and conduct of its business operations at McAllen,
Texas, purchased and received goods and material valued
in excess of $50,000 shipped directly to it from firms locat-
ed outside the State of Texas. The Respondent is now, and
has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
United Paperworkers International, AFL-CIO, is, and
has been at all times material herein, a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
On November 8, 1977, the Board issued its decision in
Parker Seal Company, A Division of Parker-Hannifin Corpo-
ration, 233 NLRB 332 (1977), wherein it found, inter alia,
that the Respondent discriminatorily warned and dis-
charged Dominga Anzaldua in order to discourage mem-
bership in the Union. Dominga Anzaldua is the sister of
Norma N. Gonzalez, the Charging Party in the instant
case. Ms. Anzaldua was reinstated and working at Parker
Seal Company at the time of the hearing before me. Anoth-
er sister of Anzaldua has been employed at the same plant
for some 2 years. Her name is Josefina Aguirre, and no
evidence was proffered to indicate that any discriminatory
action had been taken against her.
B. The Facts 2
Norma Gonzalez completed and filed an application for
employment on August 24, 1977. A careful examination of
her sometimes confusing testimony persuades me that she
' I denied the Respondent's proffer of precomplaint communications re-
lating to the General Counsel's disposition of the charge prior to issuance of
the complaint. In its brief, the Respondent again urges that these documents
be received into evidence. They are again rejected.
2 The facts set forth herein are based on a synthesis of the credited aspects
of the testimony of all witnesses, the exhibits, and careful consideration of
the logical consistency and inherent probability of the facts found. Al-
though I may not, in the course of this decision, discuss every bit of record
testimony or documentary evidence, it has been carefully weighed and con-
sidered. To the extent that evidence not mentioned herein might appear to
contradict my findings, that evidence has not been disregarded but has been
rejected as incredible, lacking in probative worth, surplusage. or irrelevant.
1023
DEC)FISIONS Ol NA FIONAI. IABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was interviewed on or about October 17, 1977, 2 days be-
fore her hire date of October 19, 1977. 1 do not credit her
testimony that she filed an earlier application in the sum-
mer of 1977 and was interviewed by Personnel Manager
Fernando Salinas. The parties stipulated that the General
Counsel had reviewed applications given to him by Salinas
during a pretrial investigation, which were represented by
Salinas to be those of the unsuccessful job applicants dur-
ing the period of January through August 1977, and found
none for either Norma Gonzalez or Norma Casas, iMs.
Gonzalez' married name, under which she claims she filed
her initial application. The parties also stipulated that the
daily applicant flow log maintained for Affirmative Action
Program purposes by the Respondent shows that during
the period of March 3, 1977, to October 5, 1977, there is no
record of any application by Norma Casas, but there is an
entry noting that Norma Gonzalez had filed an applica-
tion, the entry date being September 28, 1977. It appears
from this entry and the testimony of Salinas that the enries
are not always made in the log on the date the applications
are filed. Salinas denies ever interviewing Gonzalez, and I
credit him. Inasmuch as I conclude that Gonzalez did not
apply earlier than August 24 and was never interviewed by
Fernando Salinas, I do not credit her assertion that during
this interview he asked her if she was related to Anzaldua,
or any of the other questions that she alleges he asked her.
The interview in October, prior to Gonzalez' employ-
ment, was conducted by Ms. Josie Rivera, 3 assistant per-
sonnel manager. There is no evidence that Ms. Gonzalez
told anyone she is Anzaldua's sister. Oscar Flores, Gonza-
lez' supervisor throughout most of her employment, denies
any knowledge that she was Anzaldua's sister. General
Foreman Jose Aguilar was told of Ms. Gonzalez' relation-
ship to Ms. Anzaldua by employee Alicia Garcia shortly
after Ms. Gonzalez started working. Line control supervis-
or Ruben Martinez was told by Ms. Anzaldua that Ms.
Gonzalez was her sister sometime during Ms. Gonzalez
employment, and First Shift General Foreman Jesse Espi-
noza was told of the relationship by Ms. Anzaldua a few
weeks after Ms. Gonzalez commenced working. All three
of these supervisors deny communicating this information
to anyone else. The General Counsel correctly asserts that
this testimony establishes Respondent's knowledge of the
relationship, but I do not conclude, as General Counsel
would have me do, that this information was necessarily
conveyed to Oscar Flores by Jose Aguilar, Flores' superior,
contrary to the express denials of Aguilar that he did so and
of Flores that he personally had such knowledge.
Ms. Gonzalez was under the supervision of Flores until
some time in about mid-December 1977, when he was
transferred from being supervisor of the frontline to the
backline. I do not credit her testimony that she moved to
the backline at the same time that he did. To the contrary,
I credit Flores and supervisor Oscar Guajardo that Guajar-
do became her supervisor on the frontline in December.
She remained under his supervision for about 2 weeks, un-
til Flores requested additional help on the backline from
general foreman Joseph Aguilar, who then instructed
]General Counsel's motion to correct the record to reflect the proper
spelling as "Josie Rivera" is granted.
Flores to tell Guajardo to send some girls from his front-
line to work for Flores. One of those Guajardo selected to
wlrk for Flores was Ms. Gonzalez. She continued to work
for Flores until her termination. I credit Guajardo's testi-
mony that one of the reasons he picked her for the transfer
was that she wvas a slow worker but that he did not tell this
to Flores because this would have caused Flores to send
slov, workers to him when he needed them. I found Gua-
jardo to be a refreshing, straightforward witness, and I
credit him over Gonzalez when he testifies that he never
told her she was a fast worker, in contrast to her testimony
that at the time she was transferred he told her that the
reason was that she was a fast worker.
Dominga Anzaldua was told by Ramon Rodriguez,
4 line
foreman and admitted supervisor, in mid-December that
one of her sisters was going to get fired, that only he and
two other supervisors knew it, and that he had found it out
at a meeting. She asked him which sister. He replied that he
did not know which one and told Ms. Anzaldua, "Just
don't get into trouble." She then told Ms. Gonzalez to
watch out because she was going to be fired. She did not
tell her sister Josefina, according to her account, because
Josefina had been working for the Company for 2 years
and had a very good attendance record, and therefore the
Company would not fire her. I conclude from the fore-
going, particularly because she did not suspect her sister
Josefina was going to be discharged because her atten-
dance was good, that she entertained some suspicion at
least that Ms. Gonzalez was not as good an employee as
Josefina, and that her warning to Ms. Gonzalez was, in
effect, an admonition to be careful in her work. Ms. Gon-
zalez was a probationary employee and had not completed
her 90-day probationary period a! the time of her termina-
tion.
The Respondent employs a 90-day probationary system.
According to personnel manager Salinas, whom I credit on
this point, employees are advised of this fact. On the
Thursday or Friday of the week preceding the end of the
90-day period, the supervisors receive review forms which
require them to decide whether or not they are going to
continue employees on the payroll after the expiration of
their probation. Ms. Gonzalez' probationary period would
have expired on January 17, 1978. About 2 a.m. on Friday,
January 13, 1978, Flores and Aguilar went to the personnel
office, in accordance with their regular practice, to ascer-
tain what employees on the third shift were then to be
reviewed. Ms. Gonzalez was one of those who was due for
review. Supervisor Flores testifies that he had watched
Gonzalez work for about 3 months and observed that she
was slow, did not cooperate with her fellow employees, and
was making no progress. He also relates that an employee,
otherwise not specifically identified, complained to him
about 2 weeks before Gonzalez' termination that Ms. Gon-
zalez was working on the easier loader boards, which
pushed the more difficult work onto the other employees,
and that he personally observed that she was "staying on
the big loader." ' Flores impressed me as an extremely ner-
Rodriguez did not testify.
The loader boards are metal trays with sized cavities in them into which
rubber "O" rings are placed for molding on the presses. Each loader board
is designed to hold one specific size of "O" ring. It appears that the boards
1024
PARKER SEAL COMPANY
vous and apprehensive person by nature who would avoid
personal confrontation whenever possible, and I credit his
testimony that he did not counsel Ms. Gonzalez regarding
her work deficiencies because his prior experience in coun-
seling employees had been unsuccessful and resulted in
employee retorts to the effect that he was picking on them.,
or that there were other slower workers.
Employees Alicia Guerra and Maria Alicia Garcia both
state that they observed Ms. Gonzalez to be a very good
and very fast worker. Garcia concedes that she never ob-
served Ms. Gonzalez at her work after she went to the
backline, and Guerra only observed her working two or
three times on overtime. General Counsel witness Guadal-
upe Ramos worked with Ms. Gonzalez for a couple of
weeks on the third shift and generally states that her per-
formance was the same as that of Ramos and another em-
ployee, and a little better than that of another who is still
employed. Ramos does, however, confirm Flores' testi-
mony that some of the girls were complaining to him about
Ms. Gonzalez working slow. Former employee Amelia
Case worked with Ms. Gonzalez for a few days on the
frontline before she moved to the backline but has no
knowledge of Ms. Gonzalez' performance on the backline.
Case expressed the opinion that Ms. Gonzalez was not as
fast as Case because she was a newer employee, and was
somewhat vague and evasive in describing the caliber of
Ms. Gonzalez' work. This is illustrated by the following
exchange:
Q. [General Counsel] And what kind of worker was
Norma then?
A. She was doing all right. I mean, to my knowl-
edge, because as I tell you before, she was a new girl
and I was not going-to myself I said she was fast
enough for a new girl, but not as fast as I was, I mean.
But, I don't know, they require real fast workers, I
guess, so....
And again:
Q. [General Counsel] Can you recall any employees
that were slower than Norma Gonzalez when you
were working there?
A. Oh, with her-well, I never pay attention much,
you know, around me. But any place you got employ-
ees, you got slow workers, fast workers, and so...
New workers, they are always slow.
Amelia Case had quit her employment with the Respon-
dent in July 1978 due to sickness, therefore her testimony
was not clouded by any restraining influence inherent in an
employer-employee relationship. From her record testi-
mony and her hesitant manner in testifying before me, I
are all the same size in overall dimension, about 24 inches square. but the
larger the "O" nngs. the fewer need be placed in the tray by the loader girl.
It is obvious that one who predominantly works filling the loader boards
which accommodate the larger "O" rings does not have to work as fast as
one who works with predominantly smaller "O" rings. As examples of typi-
cal "O" rings made by the Respondent. the General Counsel entered into
evidence two "O" nngs which measured approximately 1-1 4 inch in diame-
ter and 4-3/4 inch in diameter, respectively. This difference in size clearly
illustrates that it would indeed be a much easier job to fill a loader board
with the larger nngs than the smaller.
conclude that she entertained an opinion that Ms. Gonza-
lez was slower than some other workers but was reluctant
to compare her performance with that of other loader girls
or to directly criticize her work.
Aguilar was in the personnel office with Flores on Janu-
ary 13 when Flores picked up the review notice on Ms.
Gonzalez. Flores told Aguilar that he didn't think that he
was going to keep Ms. Gonzalez, but asked if Aguilar
would look at her work and give Flores his opinion. After
this conversation, Flores went out to the press line,
watched Ms. Gonzalez for a short while, and credibly
states that he then made his decision to discharge her. The
same morning, Aguilar observed Ms. Gonzalez at work for
a few minutes, was not satisfied with what he saw, but told
Flores that it was his decision to make because he was the
one who was going to have to work with her. The decision
to continue probationary employees is made by their im-
mediate supervisors, but that decision must be approved by
the general foreman. In addition to consulting with Agui-
lar., Flores asked Oscar Guajardo if he thought that Ms.
Gonzalez would improve if she was kept on. Although
Flores' version of his conversation with Guajardo is that
Guajardo told him that he thought she wouldn't improve,
had been there 2-1/2 months,6 and was too slow, I credit
Guajardo's version that Flores asked him during a coffee-
break a day or two before Ms. Gonzalez was terminated
what his opinion was of her performance and that he told
Flores that he did not think she would make it, but he had
not had her under his supervision long enough to really
decide that, and it was up to Flores because he had her
under his supervision before and was going to have her
again if she were kept. Guajardo impressed me as a very
straightforward witness who was frank and open in his re-
sponses. Therefore, I credit him when any variation oc-
curred between his testimony and that of Flores on any
subject in which both had participated, because Flores,
whom I observed to be a generally credible witness, at-
tempting to give testimony as best he could, was extremely
nervous and somewhat confused and apprehensive at times
during his testimony. In this connection, I believe
Guajardo's testimony that he did not tell Flores that Ms.
Gonzalez was slow when she worked for Guajardo for the
reason that if he had done so Flores would retaliate by
sending him slow workers whenever he needed people.
Considering Flores' demeanor on the witness stand, I
credit his testimony that he was nervous when he dis-
charged Ms. Gonzalez because it was an unpleasant task
for him to tell someone that they no longer had a job.
Aguilar was present when Flores discharged Ms. Gonzalez.
Flores did not recall exactly what he told Ms. Gonzalez at
the discharge. but Ms. Gonzalez and Aguilar are in sub-
stantial agreement as to what transpired. After Flores
called her into the office, with Aguilar present, he told Ms.
Gonzalez, according to her, that he was sorry but that her
90 days were up and that the Company didn't want her
because she was a very slow worker, whereupon she pro-
tested that was not a reason to fire her, and he responded
hGeneral Counsel rhetorically asks. in his brief, how Guajardo would
know Ms Gonzalez had been there 2-1 2 months The answer is plain.
Flores was inquiring about her in connection with her review just prior to
the end of her 90-day probationary period
1025
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that he had checked her against other girls on the backline
and determined that she was a slow worker. Aguilar's ver-
sion is that Flores told Gonzalez that she did not meet his
standards of loading and cooperation, and that she replied
that there were some others slower than her, but then left
after a mere statement, "Well, never mind." In view of the
fact that Aguilar recalls that Ms. Gonzalez protested that
there were others slower than her, I credit her testimony
that Fores did tell her that a reason for her discharge was
that she was a slow worker. The discharge was effected
January 14, 1978, and the Personnel Change of Status form
relating to the discharge shows that the reason for dis-
charge was "poor working habits." This document is
signed by Flores as the authorizing official and Aguilar as
the approval official. The signature of Flores is followed by
the date 1/13/77, which is clearly an inadvertent error, and
that of Aguilar is followed by the date 1/13/78. Final ap-
proval of the Personnel Change of Status was made on
January 20, 1978, by Assistant Personnel Manager Rivera,
whose signature appears on the form.
C. Conclusions
The Board's November 8, 1977, decision 7 relates union
organizational efforts at the facility involved herein com-
mencing in February 1975 and continuing until the hearing
in that case, which closed on January 21, 1977. The Board
also found that the Respondent had displayed hostility to-
ward the Union by unfair labor practices, including dis-
charge to discourage union membership and the mainte-
nance and enforcement of an overly broad solicitation rule,
and as further evidenced by statements of Respondent's
officials as late as November 29, 1976. That decision also
reflects that Dominga Anzaldua was active in soliciting au-
thorization cards for the Union and received a warning
therefor and was discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) by the Company. The Company clearly knew that
Dominga Anzaldua was a union activist. There is no evi-
dence that Josefina Aguirre or Norma Gonzalez, both
Anzaldua's sisters, engaged in any union activity.
The Respondent's Hourly Employee Handbook asserts,
under the heading "'Our Basic Beliefs," that the Respon-
dent desires freedom from union interference and sets
forth the opinion that a union would be of no advantage to
either Respondent or its employees and would hurt Re-
spondent's business.s
In my opinion, a lingering suspicion of the Respondent's
motives derived from its actions found illegal in a previous
Board decision and its Handbook statements is no substi-
tute for evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that the
discharge of Norma Gonzalez was caused, in full or in
part, by her relationship to Dominga Anzaldua and was
designed to curb the union activities of Anzaldua and/or
other employees of the Respondent. No presumption of
illegality in the discharge of Ms. Gonzalez flows from the
finding that her sister was earlier unlawfully discharged or
7 Parker Seal Company. A Division of Parker-Hannifin Corporation. 233
NLRB 332 (1977).
The complait does not allege, and the General Counsel does not con-
tend, that these statements are violative of the Act.
that Respondent earlier engaged in other unfair labor prac-
tices. Although the Respondent was and is clearly aware of
Anzaldua's union activities and sympathies and plainly en-
tertains a strong antiunion profile, there is no evidence or
allegations in the case before me of any unfair labor prac-
tices by the Respondent other than the alleged unlawful
discharge of Gonzalez. The Respondent knew of
Anzaldua's activities and retaliated against her, as the
Board has previously found, but it did not take any unlaw-
ful action against her sister Josefina, who was employed at
the time the Respondent was engaging in its earlier activi-
ties found to be unlawful. On balance, I am persuaded that
given the known hostility of the Respondent toward union
activities, its history of unfair labor practices to curb such
activities, and its knowledge of Anzaldua's activities, there
is no evidence in the record sufficient to satisfy the General
Counsel's burden of showing by a preponderance of the
evidence that Norma Gonzalez was discharged because of
her sister's union activities.9 The evidence meets neither the
"but for" nor the direct causation test. Thus, there is no
showing that but for Anzaldua's known history of union
activities the Respondent would not have dismissed Ms.
Gonzalez, nor is there any showing that the union activities
of Anzaldua or anyone else were a direct or indirect caus-
ative factor in the discharge of Norma Gonzalez. Further-
more, there is no evidence or allegation of any union activi-
ties or unfair labor practices, other than the alleged
discharge of Gonzalez, since the hearing before Judge Ro-
mano in January 1977.
The cause for the separation advanced by the Respon-
dent is not clearly unreasonable and has not been shown to
be patently a pretext. A synthesis of the testimony of super-
visors and employees who were familiar with Ms. Gonza-
lez' work, even that of Dominga Anzaldua, who impliedly
concedes some deficiencies in her sister Norma's work by
her statement that she did not communicate to her sister
Josefina the information she had heard that one of her
sisters was going to be discharged because she knew that
the Company would not fire Josefina, a 2-year employee
with good attendance, lends plausibility to the Respon-
dent's asserted reasons for terminating Ms. Gonzalez just
prior to the end of her probationary period. The very pur-
pose of a probationary period is to weed out those employ-
ees whom the Employer considers to be unacceptable as
permanent employees. On the record before me, I cannot
say that the Respondent abused its discretion or enter-
tained an unlawful motive in discharging Ms. Gonzalez.
The General Counsel argues that inasmuch as employee
Alicia Garcia testified that Ms. Gonzalez' team would al-
most always have more "heats" than other teams when Ms.
Gonzalez was on the frontline, an adverse inference should
be drawn from the Respondent's failure to offer the "heat"
records into evidence, because if those records had reflect-
ed poor production the Respondent would have offered
them. I do not agree. First, I note that Garcia testified to
leam records reflecting the production of the press operator
9 Contrary to the General Counsel's contention that the Board has long
held that the discharge of a relative of a union activist violates Sec. 8(aX3)
and { I ) of the Act, it is not enough that a discharged employee be shown to
be related to a union activist. What must be shown is that the discharge was
to some degree caused by the relative's protected activities.
1026
PARKER SEAL COMPANY
and all the girls that worked with him during an 8-hour
period.'° Ms. Gonzalez was a leam member, and the rec-
ords would show total team production. Accordingly, it is
quite possible that a team might have high production even
if one or more of its members were slower than others on
the team who might be very fast workers. The entire ques-
tion as to what these records might mean is speculative at
best. Furthermore, the General Counsel made no motions
to produce or efforts to subpena the "heat" records. The
cooperation of the Respondent during the pretrial investi-
gation in providing the General Counsel with requested
records of applicants suggests that the "heat" records were
available to General Counsel if he thought them material,
and there was no indication at trial that the Respondent
was unwilling to provide such records to General Counsel.
The General Counsel was in no way precluded from secur-
ing and proffering those records as part of his case-in-chief
or as rebuttal evidence if he thought them probative evi-
dence, and the Respondent was under no burden to come
forth with the "heat" records solely because of Garcia's
testimony.
The statements of Supervisor Ramon Rodriguez to An-
zaldua in December 1977 are unexplained but, although
suspicious, do not carry any indication of unlawful motiva-
tion for the discharge of Ms. Gonzalez sufficient to estab-
lish a violation standing alone or in conjunction with the
other evidence of record, even though his cryptic adjura-
tion to Anzaldua that she should not get in trouble might
arguably be construed as a warning reminder of her previ-
ous unlawful treatment. Rodriguez' statement might must
as well be construed as information of interest to Anzaldua
regarding her sister's shaky job status for reasons other
than Anzaldua's protected activity, and a friendly warning
not to get involved in the alleged pending discharge of Ms.
Gonzalez in such a manner as to cause repercussions
against Anzaldua for such interference. Why Rodriguez
made the December statement is puzzling, because I am
convinced that no decision to discharge Ms. Gonzalez was
made until January 13. Rodriguez' failure to testify sup-
ports Anzaldua's credibility, but his absence does not lend
0 lose Aguilar credibly testified that from one to eight girls worked as
loaders for each press operator. that the "heat" records show only the num-
bers of heats produced on each press, and that there are no production
records kept on individual loader-girls.
an unlawful tinge to his remarks, absent other supporting
evidence. Further discussion on his statements would be
redundant and speculative at best. Suffice it to say that I
do not regard his statements as persuasive evidence suffi-
cient to warrant, together with the other evidence, a finding
of unlawful discharge of Ms. Gonzalez. It merely further
establishes Respondent's knowledge of the familial rela-
tionship between Dominga Anzaldua and Norma Gonza-
lez.
I conclude that the General Counsel has proved that the
Respondent is hostile to union activities among its employ-
ees and committed unfair labor practices as found by the
Board in its earlier decision. General Counsel has also
proved that Norma Gonzalez is the sister of Dominga An-
zaldua and that Respondent knew this. The General Coun-
sel has not, however, proved that Norma Gonzalez was
discharged because she is Dominga Anzaldua's sister or
because Dominga Anzaldua was a union activist.
Accordingly, the General Counsel has not established by
a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent has
violated the Act as alleged in the complaint, and I shall
recommend that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor orgnaization within the meaning
of the Act.
3. The General Counsel has not established by a pre-
ponderance of the evidence that the Respondent has vio-
lated the Act as alleged in the complaint.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and con-
clusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I
hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER ,
The complaint is dismissed in its entirety.
" In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board. the findings.
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
1027