NLRB v. Lozano Enterprises

• Decision Date: 08 June 1963
• Docket Number: No. 18205.,18205.
• Citation: 318 F.2d 41
• Parties: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. LOZANO ENTERPRISES, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

318 F.2d 41 (1963)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. LOZANO ENTERPRISES, Respondent.

No. 18205.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

June 8, 1963.

Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Melvin J. Welles and Peter M. Giesey, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Frank Simpson III, and Don T. Hibner, Jr., Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent.

Before CHAMBERS and BARNES, Circuit Judges, and CURTIS, District Judge.

CURTIS, District Judge.

The National Labor Relations Board brings this petition pursuant to section 10(e) of the NLRA for enforcement of its order which may be briefly summarized as requiring the respondent to cease and desist from discouraging membership in a labor union of its employees and from otherwise interfering with the members' enjoyment of their right of self-organization and collective bargaining. The order also requires the respondent to reinstate Jose Nabor Villasenor, one of its employees who, the Board found, had been discharged because of his participation in union activities.

The respondent is a California corporation with its office and principal place of business in Los Angeles, where it publishes a Spanish language daily newspaper, La Opinion. In April 1961, Jose Nabor Villasenor and Roberto Ocariz, both of whom were linotypists employed by the respondent, joined the Los Angeles Typographical Union, No. 174, and thereafter assisted in the union's organizational efforts in respondent's plant. On October 19, 1961, at the request of both the union and the respondent, the Board made its order ordering a representative election be held in November 1961. During the period from April to November, an effort was being made to organize respondent's employees. During this period Villasenor had about six separate conversations with Andres Laguna, the foreman for the respondent, on each of which occasions Laguna told him not to join the union, that the employees would only be exploited. On August 23, Laguna took Villasenor aside and told him that all the employees had agreed to the leave the union except Villasenor and Ocariz and that if he would leave the union, he would immediately start making $2.50 per hour and be assured of a job for the rest of his life. He also said that the employees had all worked together happily in the past without the union and that the only thing that the union did was to make promises and exploit the workers. When Villasenor refused to leave the union, Laguna handed him a letter which read as follows:

"Mr. Jose Nabor Villasenor:

"It is with regret that this letter is written to notify you that you are indefinitely suspended from your work.

"The lack of efficiency in the performance of the job assigned to you, as a linotype operator, where it has been found that your production does not meet with the expected level in relation to the rate of wages paid; your apparent disregard of the continuous recommendations of our Editorial Room members, and, finally, numerous complaints about the way time is distracted during your shift, either by talking with fellow-workers or by often engaging in telephone conversations — all of this greatly detrimental to the normal general tasks of the Department —, have determined our decision to dispense with your services.

"Please accept our appreciation for the time you worked with this organization.

LA OPINION /s/ Jose E. Bravo Jose E. Bravo, Manager."

Laguna also...