NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,428, ALUF PLASTICS, DIVISION OF API INDUSTRIES, INC. and INTERNATIONAL LADIES’ GARMENT WORKERS’ UNION, AFL-CIO/CLC., (Aug. 12, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Aug 12, 1994)

The Respondent argues that it did not violate Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act because the allegedly unlawful statements in the July 10 and 13, 1993 documents that were passed out to its Spanish-speaking employees were caused by “a shoddy translation service,” and because it did not intend to violate the Act. In addition to those reasons given by the judge for rejecting these arguments, we find under the doctrine of apparent authority that the Respondent is responsible for the translation of its speeches supplied to the employees. As the Board has indicated, “[e]ven if the conduct of another was contrary to an employer’s express instruction, the employer will be held responsible for that conduct if employees could reasonably believe that the acts were authorized.” Toyota of Berkeley, [1992-93 CCH NLRB ¶17,185] 306 NLRB 893, 912 (1992). such a situation applies here where the Respondent hired the translation service specifically to translate its speeches and then distributed the Spanish language translations after the English language speeches were given. Given these circumstances and the wording of the translations themselves, the employees would “reasonably believe” that the translations were authorized and the Respondent is thus legally responsible for them.

In addition, the judge inadvertently stated in the second paragraph of the analysis and conclusions section of his decision that Hodgson engaged in union activity at the Respondent’s Milford, Connecticut store on April 29, 1993. The judge correctly noted in the statement of the case section of his decision that that activity occurred on April 30, 1993.