Urban Constructors

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 19, 1996

320 N.L.R.B. 1166 (N.L.R.B. 1996)

1166
320 NLRB No. 154
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 The Respondents have excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule the ad-
ministrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear pre-
ponderance of all relevant evidence convinces us that they are incor-
rect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188
F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and
find no basis for reversing the findings.
Although discriminatee Stanisclas did not testify, we agree with
the judge, that the Respondent’s asserted reasons for discharging
Stanisclas were pretextual and that his discharge was motivated by
his union affiliation. In so doing, we rely on the credited testimony
of Union Representative Chapman that the Respondent’s supervisor
said that the Respondent discharged employees Stanisclas and Louis
because it was going nonunion and that both Stanisclas and Louis
were good workers. We also rely on the credited testimony of Louis
that he was told by a Respondent supervisor that he and Stanisclas
were being laid off because the job was slow. This differs from the
Respondent’s current claim that they were discharged for poor per-
formance.
2 We find merit in the General Counsel’s exception to the judge’s
inadvertent omission from his conclusion of law that the Respondent
violated Sec. 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by terminating Louis and
Stanisclas because they had been referred by the Union. We shall
amend the conclusions of law accordingly.
3 We leave to the compliance stage of the proceeding issues con-
cerning the duration of the remedy, including whether the Miami
Northwestern Senior High School job has been finished or if the
discriminatees would have been transferred to other jobsites. Dean
General Contractors, 285 NLRB 573 (1988).
Urban Constructors, Inc. and Urban Organization
and Laborers’ International Union of North
America, Local 478, AFL–CIO. Case 12–CA–
16562
April 19, 1996
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS BROWNING
AND COHEN
On September 8, 1995, Administrative Law Judge J.
Pargen Robertson issued the attached decision. The
Respondents filed exceptions and a supporting brief,
and the General Counsel filed limited exceptions.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has de-
cided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and con-
clusions2 and to adopt the recommended Order.3
AMENDED CONCLUSION OF LAW
Substitute the following for the judge’s Conclusion
of Law 3:
‘‘3. The Respondent, by discharging it employees
Willie Louis and Anele Stanisclas because they had
been referred to the job by the Union, engaged in ac-
tivity violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.’’
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, Urban Constructors and
Urban Organization Inc., Miami, Florida, its agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in this Order.
Shelley B. Plass, Esq. and Jennifer Burgess-Solomon, Esq.,
for the General Counsel.
Steven Rosen, Esq., for Respondent.
DECISION
J. PARGEN ROBERTSON, Administrative Law Judge. This
hearing was held on July 24, 1995, in Miami, Florida. A
consolidated complaint issued on March 31, 1995. On July
19, 1995, an order issued severing cases and approving the
withdrawal of Case 12–CA–16736. The 12–CA–16562
charge was filed on September 7 and amended on December
30, 1994.
All parties were represented and afforded full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence. Respondent and the General Counsel
filed briefs. On consideration of the entire record and the
briefs, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The complaint alleged that Urban Organization, Inc. (Or-
ganization) and Urban Constructors, Inc. (Constructors) con-
stitute a single integrated business and are a single employer
within the meaning of the Act. In the answer, Constructors
admitted the allegations that it is a Florida corporation, en-
gaged in business as a contractor in the building and con-
struction industry, that it purchased and received at its
Miami, Florida facility products, goods, and materials valued
in excess of $50,000 directly from points located outside the
State of Florida and at all material times it has been an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. Organization admitted that it
is a Florida corporation located in Miami but denied the
commerce allegations and denied that it is an employer en-
gaged in commerce.
During the hearing the parties stipulated that solely for
purpose of these proceedings, Respondent Constructors and
Organization are single and joint employers.
In view of the complaint, the answer, and the full record,
I find that Respondent is a single joint employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION
Respondent admitted that the Charging Party (the Union)
has been at material times a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
1167URBAN CONSTRUCTORS
III. THE ISSUES
A. The Unfair Labor Practice Allegations
It is alleged that Respondent terminated employees Willie
Louis and Anele Stanisclas in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act.
B. The Record Evidence
Union Business Manager Manny Chapman testified that he
administers the daily roll call. The roll call involves match-
ing job applicants through the Union’s hiring hall with daily
requests for employees. Those daily requests are made on
forms (shown below) called referral slips. When someone
from the hiring hall is referred to a particular job, copies of
the referral slip are prepared for the employer, the employee,
and two copies for the Union.
LABORERS’ INTERNATIONAL UNION
OF NORTH AMERICA,
AFL–CIO, LOCAL NO.lll
Time CalledlllllDatelllll
JOB REFERRAL
Employerlllllllllllll
lllllllllllll
lllllllllllll
Job Locationllllllllllll
llllllllllll
Job or Office
Ordered bylllllPhonelllll
Worker Reporting
ClassificationlllllDatelllll
Wage Rate per hour Reporting
not including fringes $lllTimelll
Worker Clearedlllllllllll
Social Security No.lllllllll
Bylllllllllll
(Authorized)
To be retained by Contractor - (White)
To be retained by Worker - (Yellow)
Office Copy - (Pink)
Office Copy - (Gold)
Chapman testified that it is the Union’s normal practice to
ask each referred employee to sign a union authorization card
at the time that employee is given a referral slip.
The Union and Respondent have entered into several col-
lective-bargaining agreements whereby Respondent agreed to
pay specified employee benefits or wages and the Union
agreed to furnish employees for the job specified in the
agreement.
Respondent considered a bid on a set-aside job at Miami
Northwestern Senior High School. Manny Chapman met with
Jacque Thermilus from Respondent. Thermilus asked Chap-
man to put in a good word for him on the job and he would
make sure that he got his employees from the Union.
Thermilus promised that he would sign an agreement with
the Union in return for the Union’s helping him get the job.
The Northwestern job was awarded to another contractor,
Gaston & Thacker. The Union entered into a collective-bar-
gaining agreement with Gaston & Thacker for the North-
western High School job on May 6, 1994.
However, Respondent became a subcontractor on the
Northwestern job. Respondent’s president, Jacque Thermilus,
phoned Manny Chapman approximately 1 week before work
started on the Northwestern job. Thermilus told Chapman
that Urban had received the job and they needed to show
good faith to Gaston & Thacker that Urban was a good con-
tractor by having some good people from the Union. Chap-
man agreed to send Respondent union referrals.
Subsequently Respondent’s superintendent, Frank Costa,
phoned the Union and asked to be supplied with six laborers
for the Northwestern job. Two more laborers were sent out
by the Union on Costa’s request 2 or 3 days later. Chapman
testified that all eight referrals signed union authorization
cards.
Undisputed record testimony illustrated that Frank Costa
was Respondent’s superintendent. Respondent denied that he
and everyone alleged as a supervisor in the complaint except
Jacque Thermilus was a supervisor. During the hearing Re-
spondent stipulated that Foremen Spann and Robinson were
supervisors and agents. Undisputed testimony showed that
Spann and Robinson worked under the supervision of Frank
Costa. Francisco Mendez, who was also denied to be a su-
pervisor, testified that he is vice president of construction
and that he oversees construction-related activities. I find
based on the credited record that Frank Costa, Francisco
Mendez, Bill Spann, and Don Robinson were, at material
times, supervisors and agents within the meaning of Section
2(13) of the Act.
Union Steward Alvin Barber testified that the Union re-
ferred him to Respondent’s Northwestern High School job in
the summer of 1994. Manny Chapman took him to the job-
site and introduced him to Frank Costa as the Union’s job
steward.
About a week after the Northwestern job started, Chapman
delivered a prepared collective-bargaining agreement to
Jacque Thermilus. Thermilus has not signed that agreement.
Chapman phoned Respondent’s office seeking to have Re-
spondent sign the collective-bargaining agreement on the
Northwestern job. Chapman also talked with Respondent on
the jobsite. The Union was told that Respondent did not have
a contract with Gaston & Thacker and that was the reason
why they had not signed the Union’s collective-bargaining
agreement. Subsequently in a meeting involving Jacque
Thermilus and Frank Mendez along with Chapman, Mendez
said they were paying $7.90 and the agreement called for $8
an hour. Chapman replied that should not be a problem.
Chapman said he would straighten it out and ‘‘then we can
sign the agreement.’’ Mendez replied, ‘‘[O]kay, I’ll get back
with you guys.’’
Manny Chapman continued to try to have Respondent sign
the agreement. Subsequently he met with Respondent Vice
President Robert Tyler at Respondent’s trailer and Frank
Mendez drove up and entered the conversation. Mendez as-
sured Chapman that he would sign the collective-bargaining
agreement before the end of the week.
The Union continued to refer employees to Respondent on
the Northwestern job. The Union referred approximately 18
employees to Respondent.
Respondent’s vice president, Francisco Mendez, testified
that he told Manny Chapman when Chapman presented his
proposed collective-bargaining agreement, that the proposed
wage rate was nowhere near the numbers they had to have
in order to make the Northwestern High School project func-
tion.
1168 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 Willie Louis testified that he was terminated on August 21, 1994.
However, Respondent records illustrated that he was terminated on
August 30, 1994.
Willie Louis testified that he is a member of the Union
and the Union referred him to Respondent’s Northwestern
High School job on July 21, 1994. He was given a referral
slip by the Union that he took to Respondent at the jobsite.
On August 24, 1994, the Union filed a representation peti-
tion for the employees of Respondent on the Northwestern
job.
After August 21, 1994,1 when Willie Louis finished for
the day, Foreman Bill Spann gave him a check. Louis was
with employee Anele Stanisclas. Both Anele Stanisclas and
Louis were terminated. Willie Louis asked Spann what hap-
pened to his job, ‘‘[W]hy you fire me.’’ Spann replied that
he did not fire Louis but the ‘‘boss’’ did fire him. Spann said
the boss was Frank Costa. Louis asked to see Frank.
Willie Louis and Anele Stanisclas spoke with Frank Costa.
Louis asked what happened, why was he fired. Frank replied
that the job was slow. Louis disputed that pointing out that
Respondent had hired two new laborers that morning. Costa
said that two men he picked up that morning, ‘‘[Y]ou don’t
know what I pay them.’’ Frank Costa said, ‘‘I pay them
$6.00 an hour.’’ Louis replied, ‘‘I can’t work for $6.00 an
hour. I say, Union.’’ Frank replied, ‘‘job not Union.’’ Louis
testified that he was not offered the job on that day or any
other time at $6 an hour.
Project Manager Yves Gallet testified that he observed the
work of Willie Louis and Anele Stanisclas. He reported their
work was not satisfactory. The two superintendents came
back and agreed that Louis and Stanisclas were not doing
what they were supposed to do. He met with Superintendent
Frank Costa and Foremen Spann and Robinson and decided
to terminate Louis and Stanisclas. Gallet admitted that he
learned Louis and Stanisclas were from the Union after they
started work for Respondent. Gallet testified that the Union
had nothing to do with the discharge of Louis and Stanisclas.
Both were discharged because of job performance.
According to Gallet it is customary for employees to first
receive a warning and then are talked to about their perform-
ance. Subsequently, if their poor work continues a decision
is made to discharge the employee. On discharge a form is
prepared describing exactly the circumstance involved with
the termination.
Louis’ termination notice includes the following expla-
nation:
This man, was approved by the Foreman & was
warned that he was not producing the work expected
from him, by his foreman, we warned him a second
time with no positive results. Absentees were also a
factor due to not calling in proper notice. These factors
were significant [in] our decision to lay off this man.
Anele Stanisclas’ termination notice included the follow-
ing:
This man, was warned several times about, his per-
formance, & his attitude on the job, standing around,
talking, smoking while he should of been working, his
foreman [unclear] warned him that his method’s [sic] of
working, were not productive & he was laid off.
Despite the comments on his termination notice, Willie
Louis testified that he never received a warning and no one
told him that he was not performing his job. Louis testified
that he and Stanisclas were told they were being laid off be-
cause the job was slow. When Louis pointed out that two
new employees had been hired that morning, Frank Costa
told him those employees were being paid $6 an hour.
Four of the employees from Respondent’s Northwestern
job came into the union hall—Anele Stanisclas, Willie Louis,
Andrew Brown, and Joe Blevin. They told Chapman they
had been laid off. Chapman phoned Job Steward Alvin Bar-
ber. Chapman told Barber to have the job foreman come by
Chapman’s office.
The foreman, Don Robinson, came by the union hall.
Chapman asked about the layoff. Foreman Don Robinson
said that Frank Mendez had a meeting and said the job ‘‘was
going non-union, and he didn’t need the Union guys no more
because he could get all the mens [sic] for $6.00.’’ Robinson
told Chapman that he did not have a problem with the men’s
work, that they were good workers.
Respondent stipulated that its foremen, Bill Spann and
Don Robinson, were supervisors and agents.
Yves Gallet testified that he was present when Louis and
Stanisclas were terminated. Stanisclas reacted to his termi-
nation by claiming that he had been terminated because he
was Haitian. Project Accountant Roger Rouzier recalled he
was present with Project Manager Frank Costa at the termi-
nation interview. It is Rouzier’s job to prepare the layoff
paycheck when an employee is terminated. Rouzier told
Stanisclas that he was not being discriminated against and
that Rouzier himself was Haitian.
Rouzier testified there are other union laborers still on the
job that are making $7.90 an hour and more. On cross-exam-
ination, he identified Gwendolyn Apedo, a carpenter’s helper
as the only union person still on the job. Rouzier admitted
there are no laborers remaining that were referred to the job
by the Union.
A week after filing the August 24 petition with the NLRB,
Manny Chapman went to the jobsite where he spoke with
Superintendent Frank Costa. He told Costa that he was look-
ing for Frank Mendez, that Mendez was ducking him and
‘‘we haven’t had our agreement.’’ He did not succeed in
talking with Mendez.
Credibility
I found Manny Chapman to be a truthful witness. He ap-
peared to testify responsively on both direct and cross. I was
impressed with his demeanor and I credit his testimony.
Alvin Barber and Willie Louis appeared to testify truth-
fully. In consideration of the demeanor of the witnesses and
the full record, I do not credit the testimony of Yves Gallet
as to the reason why Louis and Stanisclas were terminated.
Gallet’s testimony conflicted with the record that failed to
show that Louis and Stanisclas were warned about their work
before discharge and by the undisputed testimony of Manny
Chapman that proved that Foreman Don Robinson told him
that Louis, Stanisclas, and two other employees were termi-
nated because Respondent decided to go nonunion. Although
Gallet recalled that he was present during the termination,
Rouzier recalled that Frank Costa, along with Louis and
Stanisclas, were present. I do not credit Rouzier in view of
his admission on cross that none of the laborers referred by
1169URBAN CONSTRUCTORS
the Union remained on the job. That conflicted with his testi-
mony on direct that some of the union referrals were still
working and by records which show that one union-referred
laborer was on the job at the time of the hearing.
In view of his demeanor and the entire record, I credit the
testimony of Willie Louis. Louis’ testimony as to the events
after his termination, as well as the termination of Anele
Stanisclas, was not disputed by either of Respondent’s two
foremen or by Superintendent Frank Costa. Even though
Louis’ termination notice stated that he had been warned
about his work by his foreman, Louis testified to the contrary
and his foremen did not testify. Costa did not testify. I credit
Louis’ testimony including his testimony that he was never
warned about his job performance. To the extent there are
conflicts, I credit the testimony of Willie Louis and do not
credit the testimony of Yves Gallet or Roger Rouzier.
Findings
In consideration of the unfair labor practice allegations
that Respondent illegally terminated Louis and Stanisclas, I
should first consider whether the General Counsel proved a
prima facie case in support of the allegations. If the evidence
supports a prima facie case, then Respondent may show that
it would have laid off the employees in the absence of pro-
tected activity. Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd.
662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989
(1982); NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462
U.S. 393 (1983).
As to whether the General Counsel proved that Respond-
ent was motivated to discharge Wilson because of his union
activity, the Board has held:
[I]n order to establish a prima facie violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, the General Counsel must
establish (1) that the alleged discriminatees engaged in
union activities; (2) that the employer had knowledge
of such; (3) that the employer’s actions were motivated
by union animus; and (4) that the discharges had the ef-
fect of encouraging or discouraging membership in a
labor organization. [Electromedics, Inc., 299 NLRB
928, 937 (1990), affirmed mem. 947 F.2d 953 (10th
Cir. 1991).]
The evidence shows that the alleged discriminatees were
referred to the job by the Union. Each of them signed a
union authorization card. The record shows that Respondent
was aware of their referrals and the referrals showed they
were referrals from the Union. The credited evidence proved
that Respondent received referral cards from both Louis and
Stanisclas and copies of those referrals along with Louis’
union authorization card were contained in their personnel
files with Respondent. Respondent was paying both Louis
and Stanisclas the $7.90 it paid to union-referred employees.
The Union filed a representation petition with the NLRB
on August 24, 1994, and that petition was served on Re-
spondent on August 26, 1994. Between August 26 and Sep-
tember 2, 1994, Respondent terminated four of its laborers
that were making the Union’s referral wage of $7.90 an hour.
Two other union-referred laborers quit during that period of
time. By the end of September 2, 1994, Respondent em-
ployed six fewer union-referred laborers than it employed on
August 24. Of those six only two, Louis and Stanisclas, are
alleged to have been illegally terminated.
Respondent, in its brief, argued that the Union referred 18
laborers to its Northwestern High School job and that 1 of
those 18 remains on the job; 5 were terminated or otherwise
left work during 1995; 1 was terminated in December 1994;
and 1 appears to have never been employed by Respondent.
In view of the full record, I find that Respondent knew
that Louis and Stanisclas were affiliated with the Union and
had been referred to the job by the Union.
As shown above, I credit the testimony of Manny Chap-
man including Chapman’s testimony as to what Foreman
Don Robinson told him as to the reason Respondent termi-
nated Louis and Stanisclas. Robinson was a stipulated super-
visor and agent. That evidence showed that Respondent ter-
minated Louis and Stanisclas because it had decided to go
nonunion and to rid itself on its union employees. That evi-
dence proved that Respondent was motivated to terminate
Louis and Stanisclas because of their union affiliation. I also
credit the testimony of Willie Louis that showed that when
he confronted Frank Costa about Respondent having hired
two new laborers on the morning of Louis’ termination,
Costa stated that he had hired those men at $6 an hour. Em-
ployees referred by the Union such as Louis and Stanisclas
were being paid $7.90 per hour. I find that by terminating
Louis and Stanisclas because of their union affiliation Re-
spondent’s action tended to discouraged its employees from
engaging in union activity. I find that the General Counsel
proved a prima facie case in support of its allegations that
Louis and Stanisclas were discharged in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
Respondent pointed to the testimony of Yves Gallant in ar-
guing that Louis and Stanisclas were terminated because of
poor work performance. As shown above, I do not credit
Gallant’s testimony that conflicted with that of Willie Louis
regarding what was said by Respondent’s agents during
Louis’ discharge. Despite Gallant’s testimony there was no
probative evidence that Louis was ever warned. No super-
visor testified that he was present when Louis was warned
and Louis testified that he was never warned. Moreover, nei-
ther Stanisclas nor Louis’ personnel records contain any
warnings nor do either of those files reflect that either
Stanisclas or Louis ever received any verbal warnings.
Respondent also argued that Louis was not truthful in his
testimony because the records show that Louis did not al-
ways work full 40-hour weeks and that conflicts with testi-
mony that he did not miss work. Unfortunately for Respond-
ent those records do not reflect whether Louis failed to work
40 hours because of his actions or because he was not as-
signed to work a full 40-hour week on those occasions. The
record failed to reflect that Louis missed any assigned work.
The full record shows that Respondent did not terminate
Louis or Stanisclas because of work performance or for any
reason other than their union affiliation. In view of the cred-
ited evidence, I find that Respondent failed to prove that
Louis or Stanisclas would have been terminated in the ab-
sence of their union affiliation.
The credited evidence also shows that Respondent engaged
in pretext. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has found:
First, the General Counsel must show by a preponder-
ance of the evidence that protected activity was a moti-
1170 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
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
National Labor Relations Board’’ shall read ‘‘Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order
of the National Labor Relations Board.’’
vating factor in the employer’s decision to discharge an
employee. Such a showing establishes a section 8(a)(3)
violation unless the employer can show as an affirma-
tive defense that it would have discharged the employee
for legitimate reason regardless of the protected activ-
ity. The General Counsel may then offer evidence that
the employer’s proffered ‘‘legitimate’’ explanation is
pretextual—that the reason either did not exist or was
in fact relied upon—thereby conclusively restore the in-
ference of unlawful motivation. [NLRB v. United Sani-
tation Service, 737 F.2d 936, 939 (11th Cir. 1984); also
quoted in Northport Health Services, Inc. v. NLRB, 961
F.2d 1547, 1550 (11th Cir. 1992).]
As shown above, the evidence showed that Respondent’s
policy was to first warn and then talk with employees about
work problems before discharge. Here, there was no evidence
showing that either Willie Louis or Anele Stanisclas was
ever warned about their work. Instead the credited testimony
of Willie Louis proved that he was not warned about his
work and that he was told by Superintendent Frank Costa
that employees hired on the day of his termination were re-
ceiving $6 an hour as opposed to the $7.90 an hour paid
union referrals and that the job was not Union. I agree with
the General Counsel. The evidence failed to support Re-
spondent’s contention that it would have discharged Louis
and Stanisclas absent their union activity and the record
showed that Respondent’s asserted basis for that discharge
was pretextuous.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Urban Constructors, Inc. and Urban Organization is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Laborers’ International Union of North America, Local
478, AFL–CIO is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent by discharging its employees Willie Louis
and Anele Stanisclas because they had been referred to the
job by the Union, engaged in activity violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and
desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent has illegally laid off its em-
ployees Willie Louis and Anele Stanisclas because of their
protected activities, I shall order Respondent to offer Louis
and Stanisclas immediate reinstatement to their former posi-
tions or, if those positions no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or
other rights and privileges. I further shall order Respondent
to make Louis and Stanisclas whole for any loss of earnings
they suffered as a result of the discrimination against them
and that Respondent remove from its records any reference
to the unlawful discharges of its employees Willie Louis and
Anele Stanisclas and notify Louis and Stanisclas in writing
that Respondent’s unlawful conduct will not be used as a
basis for further personnel action. Backpay shall be com-
puted as described in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289
(1950), with interest as described in New Horizons for the
Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended2
ORDER
The Respondent, Urban Constructors, Inc. and Urban Or-
ganization, Miami, Florida, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Laying off its employees because the employees were
referred to the job by Laborers’ International Union of North
America, Local 478, AFL–CIO or by any other labor organi-
zation or because the employees are affiliated with the
Union.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer Willie Louis and Anele Stanisclas immediate and
full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges
previously enjoyed, and make Louis and Stanisclas whole for
any loss of earnings plus interest, they suffered by reason of
its illegal actions.
(b) Rescind its discharges of Willie Louis and Anele
Stanisclas and remove from its files any reference to its dis-
charges of Louis and Stanisclas and notify Willie Louis and
Anele Stanisclas in writing that this has been done and that
evidence of its unlawful actions will not be used against
them in any way.
(c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board
or its agents for examination and copying, all payroll records,
social security payment records, and timecards, personnel
records, reports, and all other records necessary to analyze
the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its facility in Miami, Florida, copies of the at-
tached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’3 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 12, after
being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative,
shall be posted by the Respondent immediately 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, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
1171URBAN CONSTRUCTORS
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY THE ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us
to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protection
To choose not to engage in any of these protected
concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT lay off our employees because they were re-
ferred to our job by Laborers’ International Union of North
America, Local 478, AFL–CIO or by any other labor organi-
zation.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL rescind our layoff of Willie Louis and Anele
Stanisclas and WE WILL notify them in writing that we will
not use their layoffs against them in any manner.
WE WILL offer immediate and full reinstatement to Willie
Louis and Anele Stanisclas to their former jobs or, if those
jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privi-
leges.
WE WILL make Willie Louis and Anele Stanisclas whole
for any loss of earnings they suffered by reason of our dis-
crimination against them with interest.
URBAN CONSTRUCTORS, INC. AND URBAN
ORGANIZATION