Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-09543/USCOURTS-ca10-91-09543-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
La Favorita, Inc.
Respondent
National Labor Relations Board
Petitioner

Document Text:

,. 

Fl ~u ~D 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

United States Co!,lrt ~£ App: Ell!:1 

Tenth C1rcu1 • 

MAY 2 G 1992 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 

Petitioner, 

v . 

LA FAVORITA, INC., 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ROBERT L. HOECKEE 

Clerk 

No. 91-9543 

(Nos . 27-CA-11014 

) and 27-CA-11210) 

)(Application for Enforcement) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this petition. See Fed. R. App . P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9 . 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

This matter is before the court on the application of the 

National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for enforcement of an order 

finding La Favorita, Inc . in violation of sections 8(a ) (l) and (3) 

of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) . La Favorita filed a 

cross petition seeking to set aside the NLRB's order. After 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-9543 Document: 010110254280 Date Filed: 05/26/1992 Page: 1
carefully reviewing the record, we grant enforcement. See 29 

u.s.c . § 160(e). 

Gilbert and Sylvia Gamez own and operate the La Favorita 

tortilla bakery and restaurant, which are separate facilities 

located a few miles apart in Brighton, Colorado. La Favorita 

employs approximately forty people in the two facilities. In 

August 1989, union representative Wilbert Martinez commenced 

efforts to organize the La Favorita employees. The violations 

which are the subject of the NLRB's order arose out of the 

organization effort and the subsequent union election held at the 

tortilla plant. 

The Board's order adopted in whole the rulings, findings, and 

recommendation of the administrative law judge. The ALJ ruled La 

Favorita violated section B(a)(l) of the NLRA by 1) offering 

employees money to assault the union organizer, 2) threatening to 

terminate employees if they spoke to the union organizer, 3) 

threatening employees by telling them other employees were fired 

for talking to a union organizer, 4) offering raises as inducement 

to vote no in the union election, and 5) interrogating employees 

about their voting preferences so those opposed to the union could 

be encouraged to vote. In addition, the ALJ found La Favorita 

violated section 8(a)(3) when it refused to rehire an employee 

because of his union activities. 

"On review of an NLRB order, a court should grant enforcement 

if the Board correctly interpreted and applied the law and if its 

findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record, 

considered in its entirety." Presbyterian/St. Luke's Medical Ctr. 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-9543 Document: 010110254280 Date Filed: 05/26/1992 Page: 2
v. NLRB, 723 

adopted the 

F.2d 1468, 1471 (10th Cir. 1983). 

findings and recommendations 

Here, the Board 

of the ALJ. 

Consequently, we must review the record to determine whether 

substantial evidence supports the ALJ's ultimate conclusions. In 

this endeavor we may not reweigh the evidence, absent 

extraordinary circumstances, as credibility determinations such as 

those necessary to decide this case are particularly within the 

province of the ALJ. McLane/Western, Inc. v. NLRB, 723 F.2d 1454, 

1458 (10th Cir. 1983). With these principles in mind, we review 

the Board's order. 

A. Violations Under Section 8(a)(l) 

The ALJ found five violations under section 8(a)(l) of the 

Act. This section, which is codified at 29 U.S.C. § 158, makes it 

unlawful "to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the 

exercise of the rights guaranteed" in the NLRA. 29 u.s.c. 

S 158(a)(l). In light of the fact-intensive nature of the 

findings at issue, we address each stated violation separately. 

1. Offer of money to assault union organizer 

Valentin Garcia, a former employee at La Favorita, testified 

that Gilbert Gamez approached him on August 19, 1989, and offered 

him twenty dollars to spray Wilbert Martinez with a high pressure 

water hose. Garcia testified that when he declined, Gamez 

approached current employee Patricio Reyna and made the same 

offer. Garcia testified that although water was sprayed towards 

Martinez, he did not get wet. Gamez denied the incident ever took 

place. Reyna recalled an incident where Martinez was almost 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-9543 Document: 010110254280 Date Filed: 05/26/1992 Page: 3
sprayed with water, but indicated it was unintentional and that 

Gamez never offered him money. 

The ALJ credited the testimony of Mr. Garcia over that of 

Messrs. Gamez and Reyna. The ALJ stated, "Mr. Gamez ... left me 

with the strong impression that he was simply denying those events 

and statements attributed to him which he felt were inconvenient 

or embarrassing. I do not believe he felt constrained by the 

truth to fully describe events as he recalled them. " R. Vol. III 

Doc. 1 at 7. 1 We have carefully reviewed the record and conclude 

there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ's conclusion that 

Gamez was attempting to interfere with the union organization 

effort. 

2. Threats regarding termination for talking to union organizer 

Four different employees testified regarding threats Gilbert 

Gamez allegedly made to coerce votes at the union election. 

Valentin Garcia testified that he came to work the morning after 

giving his name to Martinez and found his time card missing. He 

testified that a second employee also had his card removed. He 

stated Gamez, who had the time cards, questioned him regarding his 

involvement with Martinez. Garcia and the second employee were 

allegedly told Gamez had already fired one employee for giving his 

name to the organizer and that if they continued he would fire 

them as well. 

1 We note at the outset that this 

permeates the ALJ's decision. The 

factual conflicts inherent in the case 

Gamez' demeanor to be unpersuasive 

against the various witnesses involved 

1 at 6. 

4 

credibility determination 

ALJ specifically noted the 

and stated, "I found Mr. 

particularly when arrayed 

herein. " R. Vol. III Doc. 

Appellate Case: 91-9543 Document: 010110254280 Date Filed: 05/26/1992 Page: 4
Jesus Raul Rodriguez, another former employee, also testified 

about threats Mr. Gamez made. He recalled a conversation with 

Gamez at the end of the day when both were located outside the 

plant near Martinez. Rodriguez testified that he asked Gamez 

about a certain employee who he had not seen recently. Gamez 

replied that the employee was fired because he was seen talking to 

the union organizer. Gamez denied having the conversation. 

Two other employees, Rigoberto Briones and Alicia Basquez, 

also testified to conversations they had with Gilbert Gamez 

regarding the union organizer. Briones stated Gamez told him that 

any employees seen talking to Martinez would be fired . Likewise, 

Basquez testified that Gamez told her he had let employees go for 

speaking to the union organizer. Gamez denied both conversations. 

The ALJ credited these employees' testimony over the denials 

from Mr. Gamez. The record amply supports the ALJ's findings with 

respect to these violations. In its appellate brief, however, La 

Favorita argues vigorously that the testimony of these witnesses 

was patently incredible. In particular, the company argues that 

the incident involving the time cards could not have taken place 

because the employees' time cards show that they did not punch in 

at the same time on the date in question, or for that matter, on 

any date that week. There is a fifteen minute difference between 

the punch-in times of the two employees on the date in question. 

The difference in time noted on the cards does not make the 

testimony patently incredible . Garcia did not testify that the 

two men punched in at exactly the same time, only that they came 

in to get the cards and start work at the same time. Moreover, 

5 

Appellate Case: 91-9543 Document: 010110254280 Date Filed: 05/26/1992 Page: 5
the ALJ's findings, including his determination that the 

witnesses' credibility would not be absolutely dependent on their 

description of the timing of these events, was well within his 

discretion. "[W]hen, as here, the issues presented are largely 

ones of credibility, we will not lightly overturn the decision of 

the ALJ who had the opportunity to hear the testimony and view the 

witnesses." NLRB v. First Nat'l Bank of Pueblo, 623 F.2d 686, 691 

(10th Cir. 1980) . La Favorita's contentions are really an attempt 

to reargue the facts . This they cannot do. 

3. Offering employees raises to vote no in the election 

Margarito Gonzales testified that prior to the election, 

Gilbert Gamez mentioned that he was considering giving Gonzales 

and his two cousins, Valentin and Petronila Garcia, raises. Gamez 

allegedly told Gonzales they would get the raise if they voted 

against the union. Gonzales stated Gamez told him to convey this 

message to his cousins. Gamez denied the conversation ever took 

place. 

Valentin Garcia testified that the day before the election he 

and his brother were leaving the plant when Mr. Gamez approached 

them. Gamez made certain derogatory remarks about the union then 

directed Garcia to Margarito Gonzales, who Gamez said "knew 

everything." Again, Gamez denied this conversation took place. 

Both Gonzales and Garcia testified that the offer was conveyed to 

Garcia. Garcia testified that he told Gonzales he would not 

accept the raise because his past requests for a wage increase 

were denied. Gonzalez' testimony confirmed these statements, 

although he stated Garcia told him he was "inside" the union and, 

6 

Appellate Case: 91-9543 Document: 010110254280 Date Filed: 05/26/1992 Page: 6
therefore, would not accept the offer. It is undisputed that 

Margarito Gonzales received a raise on November 16, 1989. 

Again, the record contains substantial evidence to support 

the ALJ's determination that Gamez' conduct constituted an attempt 

to interfere with the election process. Gamez' only response to 

this testimony, which was corroborated by two witnesses, was 

complete denial that any of the events occurred. Because the 

record completely supports the ALJ's findings, we agree that 

enforcement is appropriate. 

4. Interrogation of employees on election day 

Margarita Medina testified that on the day of the election 

she received a call from an employee of La Favorita while she was 

at a friend's house. Sylvia Gamez then got on the phone and asked 

her why she had not voted. Medina responded that she was busy. 

Gamez inquired what her vote would be. When she responded "no," 

Gamez offered to send a cab for her so she could vote. Medina 

testified she did get to the plant to vote, but did not take a 

cab. Sylvia Gamez denied the events ever took place. 

Once again, the ALJ made a credibility determination based on 

his assessment of the witnesses and their demeanor. Our review of 

the record reveals there is substantial evidence in the record to 

support his determination . 

B. Violation of section 8(a)(3) 

The ALJ also concluded La Favorita violated section 8(a)(3) 

of the Act, codified at 29 u.s.c. § 158(a)(3). This provision 

makes it an unfair labor practice to discriminate "in regard to 

hire or tenure of employment." Id. The ALJ found La Favorita 

7 

Appellate Case: 91-9543 Document: 010110254280 Date Filed: 05/26/1992 Page: 7
violated this provision when it refused to rehire Valentin Garcia 

because of his union sentiments and activities. 

On November 12, 1989, Garcia submitted a written request for 

a leave of absence to commence November 15. Garcia made the 

request because his wife was having a difficult pregnancy and was 

going to deliver early. He requested leave without pay until the 

baby was born. Garcia testified that after submitting the request 

he had a conversation with Gilbert Gamez in which Gamez indicated 

Garcia's job would be available when he returned. 

At the end of the workday on November 15, Garcia received the 

following letter, written in both English and Spanish: 

Your request for a leave of absence, without pay, 

beginning November 16, 1989 is granted. The leave of 

absence is for 5 days. If you do not return to work on 

or before November 21, 1989 you will have to reapply for 

employment with La Favorita, Inc. If it is necessary 

for you to reapply for employment with La Favorita, 

Inc., you will be given priority consideration if and 

when there is and [sic] opening. 

R. Vol. III Doc. 1 at 6 . Mrs. Garcia gave birth on November 26. 

Due to complications, she was forced to remain at home, in bed, 

until January 6. 

Garcia returned to La Favorita on December 15. Gamez told 

him there was no work but that he should fill out a new 

application, which he did. On January 21, Garcia returned to the 

plant. Gamez stated he had already hired new employees and that 

Garcia was too late. On January 25, Garcia spoke with Gilbert 

Gamez' father, who told him he had no chance of obtaining 

employment at the plant. 

8 

Appellate Case: 91-9543 Document: 010110254280 Date Filed: 05/26/1992 Page: 8
La Favorita records indicate that several new employees were 

hired in December. Gilbert Gamez testified he called Garcia on 

December 18 to offer him a job. He stated he called several times 

and let the phone ring for five minutes each time, but that no one 

answered. In contrast, Mrs . Garcia testified Gamez never called. 

She was sure of this because she did not leave the house in 

December and had the phone on a nightstand next to her bed. 

The court credited the Garcias' testimony on this issue and 

discredited that of Mr. Gamez. The ALJ noted there was testimony 

from Margarito Gonzales indicating Gamez was told Garcia was 

"inside" the union. Thus, the credited testimony supported an 

inference that Gamez was fully aware of Garcia's sentiments with 

respect to the attempt to organize La Favorita. We reject La 

Favorita's argument that the ALJ's ruling requires it to rehire 

any employee who takes a leave of absence extending longer than 

what the company has allowed. The ALJ's decision merely prohibits 

La Favorita from making hiring decisions solely on the basis that 

the applicant in question has shown pro-union sentiment. We hold 

there is substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ's 

ruling that Gamez failed to rehire Garcia because of his union 

activities and sentiment. 

9 

Appellate Case: 91-9543 Document: 010110254280 Date Filed: 05/26/1992 Page: 9
Consequently, La Favorita's petition for review of the order 

by the National Labor Relations Board is DENIED. The National 

Labor Relations Board's request for enforcement is GRANTED . 

10 

Entered for the Court 

Wade Brorby 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-9543 Document: 010110254280 Date Filed: 05/26/1992 Page: 10