NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,449, RAINBOW GARMENT CONTRACTING, INC. and ANTI-RACIST GARMENT WORKERS UNION and GUSTAVO ESPINOSA., (Aug. 29, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Aug 29, 1994)

RAINBOW GARMENT CONTRACTING, INC. and ANTI-RACIST GARMENT WORKERS UNION and GUSTAVO ESPINOSA.

314 NLRB No. 153.Case Nos. 21-CA-28185 and -28196. August 29, 1994 Gerald A. Wacknov, Administrative Law Judge..

Before Gould, Stephens and Devaney.

Salvadore Sanders, for General Counsel. Stephen A. Varga, Santa Monica, California, for Respondent. Jose O. Hernandez, Representative, Los Angeles, California, for Union.

Remedial Orders--Reinstatement--Discriminatory Discharges.--In light of the fact that an employer engaged in discriminatory conduct by discharging five employees because it suspected that they supported a union during its organizing campaign, the NLRB entered an order requiring their reinstatement with full back pay. However, the Board did leave certain issues regarding reinstatement and back pay to compliance proceedings and further indicated that discriminatees might not be entitled to those remedies if they were not legally entitled to be employed in the United States. Section 10(c).

Back reference: ¶5320.245.

Threats--Physical Harm--Discouraging Unionism.--By engaging in surveillance of its employees’ union activities and by coercively discouraging employees from engaging in union activities, an employer interfered with their right to freely select a bargaining representative. The employer conspicuously photographed union organizers in the presence of assembled employees and told employees that it would engage in various acts of violence against them. Section 8(a)(1).

Back reference: ¶3770.401.

Discrimination--Pretextual Nature of Reason--Demonstrated Union Hostility.--By discharging five employees because they were suspected of supporting a union organizing campaign, an employer discriminated against them. The employer set forth various reasons for the discharges that were demonstrated to be pretextual. Further, the employer had demonstrated union animus by engaging in other unfair labor practices during the unionization effort. Section 8(a)(5).

Back reference: ¶4095.1745.

From Text of Board’s Decision

The Board has considered the decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order as modified. [1]