Atlantis Health Care Group

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Apr 21, 2010

24-CA-011300 (N.L.R.B. Apr. 21, 2010)

JD(ATL)–10–10
Ponce, PR
Aguadilla, PR
and Fajardo, PR
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
ATLANTA BRANCH OFFICE
ATLANTIS HEALTH CARE
GROUP (P.R.) INC.
and CASE 24–CA–11300
UNION GENERAL DE TRABAJADORES
DE PUERTO RICO, A/W SERVICE
EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL
UNION (SEIU), LOCAL 1199, AFL–CIO.
Jose Luis Ortiz, Esq.,
for the Government. 1
Manuel A. Nunez, Esq., and
Zulimary V. Serrano, Esq.,
for the Company.2
Jose Aneses–Pena, Esq.,
for the Union.3
DECISION
Statement of the Case
WILLIAM N. CATES, Administrative Law Judge. This is a unilateral change case
which I heard in trial in San Juan, Puerto Rico on March 2, 2010. The case originates from a
charge filed on August 20, 2009, by Union General de Trabajadores de Puerto Rico, a/w
Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 1199, AFL–CIO (Union). The
prosecution of the case was formalized on November 30, 2009, when the Acting Regional
Director for Region 24 of the National Labor Relations Board (Board), acting in the name of

1 I shall refer to Counsel for General Counsel as Counsel for the Government and General Counsel as the
Government.
2 I shall refer to Counsel for the Company as Counsel for the Company and shall refer to the Respondent as
the Company.
3 I shall refer to Counsel for the Charging Party as Counsel for the Union and refer to the Charging Party as
the Union.
JD(ATL)–10–10
2
the Board’s General Counsel, issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing (Complaint) against
Atlantis Health Care Group (P.R.) Inc. (Company).
The Company, in a timely filed answer to the Complaint, denied having violated the
Act in any manner alleged in the Complaint. 5
Specifically, it is alleged that the Company, during approximately the second pay
period in March 2009, decreased the wage rates of the employees in certain appropriate
collective–bargaining units, represented by the Union, by 45 cents per hour without prior
notice to the Union and without providing the Union an opportunity to bargain with regard to 10
the conduct and the effects of such conduct. It is alleged the Company, by the conduct
described above, violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended (Act).
The parties were given full opportunity to participate, to introduce relevant evidence, 15
and to file briefs. The parties entered into a stipulated record, consisting of various stipulations
of fact, and called no witnesses. Additionally, the parties stipulated that, if called, Company
Human Resources Director Hermongenes Torres–Morilla (HR Director Torres–Morilla), an
admitted supervisor and agent of the Company, would testify as set forth in the factual
stipulation pertaining to him. The parties also stipulated that, if called, Union Representative 20
Maria S. Cancel would testify as set forth in the factual stipulation pertaining to her. I have
studied the stipulated record, the post–trial briefs, and the authorities cited therein. Based on
more detailed findings and analysis below, I conclude and find the Company violated the Act
as alleged in the complaint.
25
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction, Labor Organization Status and Bargaining Units.
The Company is a Commonwealth of Puerto Rico corporation with a main office in 30
Trujillo Alto, Puerto Rico, and has been, and continues to be, engaged in the operation of
twelve outpatient dialysis and related health centers at various locations throughout the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, including Ponce, Aguadilla and Fajardo. Annually, the
Company purchases and receives, directly from points located outside the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, equipment, goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, and annually derives 35
gross revenues in excess of $250,000 in the operation of its business. The parties admit, and I
find, the Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6) and (7) of the Act.
The parties admit, and I find, the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of 40
Section 2(5) of the Act.
It is admitted that the following employees of the Company, herein called the Units,
constitute units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
JD(ATL)–10–10
3
Section 9(b) of the Act:
Ponce Units
UNIT A5
INCLUDED: All non–professional employees, including LPNs, equipment
technicians, maintenance technicians, reuse technicians, clerical employees,
receptionists, billing and collection employees employed by the Company in its
facilities located in Hospital San Lucas II, Ponce, Puerto Rico.10
EXCLUDED: All other employees, guards and supervisors as defined by the
Act.
UNIT B
15
INCLUDED: All professional employees, including RNs, nutritionist (dietician)
and social workers employed by the Company at its facilities located in Hospital
San Lucas II, Ponce, Puerto Rico.
EXCLUDED: All other employees, guards and supervisors as defined by the
Act.20
Aquadilla Units
UNIT A
25
INCLUDED: All non–professional employees, including LPNs, equipment
technicians, maintenance technicians, reuse technicians, clerical employees,
receptionists, billing and collection employees employed by the Company in its
facilities located in Good Samaritan Community Hospital in Aguadilla, Puerto
Rico.30
EXCLUDED: All other employees, guards and supervisors as defined by the
Act.
UNIT B
35
INCLUDED: All professional employees, including RNs, nutritionist (dietician)
and social workers employed by the Company at its facilities located in Good
Samaritan Community Hospital in Aguadilla, Puerto Rico.
EXCLUDED: All other employees, guards and supervisors as defined by the
Act.40
Fajardo Unit
INCLUDED: All professional employees including registered nurses, dieticians
and social workers employed by the Company at its facilities located in Fajardo, 45
Puerto Rico.
EXCLUDED: All other employees, guards and supervisors as defined by the Act.
JD(ATL)–10–10
4
II. The Stipulated and /or Admitted Facts
Since about November 1, 2002, the Union has been the designated exclusive
collective–bargaining representative of the Units, and, since about the year 2000, the Company 5
has acknowledged the Union as the representative. This recognition has been embodied in
collective–bargaining agreements, effective from November 1, 2002 to October 31, 2005, for
each of the respective units, including Ponce, Aguadilla and Fajardo. The agreements were,
thereafter, extended by various stipulations between the parties. Specifically, on April 12,
2006, the parties entered into a stipulation extending the collective–bargaining agreements 10
until January 31, 2008. On March 5, 2008, the parties again stipulated to an extension of the
collective–bargaining agreements until June 30, 2008, and, on that date, stipulated to an
extension of their agreements until January 31, 2009. On January 14, 2009, the parties agreed
to extend their collective–bargaining agreements, thereafter, on a day to day basis, until
bargaining resulted in new agreements or the parties reached impasse in negotiations. The 15
parties started negotiations in January 2009, but, as of the trial herein, had not arrived at any
successor agreements.
Article 19, Section 1 of each of the parties’ expired collective–bargaining agreements
relates to wage increases, on a yearly basis, for the unit employees for each of the three 20
covered years of 2003, 2004 and 2005. The same provisions in the parties’ collective–
bargaining agreements provides the Company will grant a salary increase of 45 cents per hour
for all professional employees, 40 cents per hour for all technicians and 30 cents per hour for
all other employees. In as much as the parties extended their collective–bargaining agreements
in the subsequent three years, the Company continued to grant the salary increases for the years 25
2006, 2007 and 2008. On April 2006, the salary increases were granted retroactive to the first
pay period of February of the same year. In 2007 and 2008, the salary increases were granted
on the first pay period of February of each year.
During the first payroll period of February 2009, the Company granted its unit 30
employees salary increases of 45 cents per hour to all professional employees, 40 cents per
hour to all technicians and 30 cents per hour to all other employees. The February 2009
increases were not negotiated with the Union, nor did the Company give prior notification of
the salary increases to the Union. The parties’ January 14, 2009 stipulation, extending the
terms of their previous collective–bargaining agreements, is silent regarding any salary 35
increases. The parties’ prior stipulations and collective–bargaining agreements do contain a
mandatory arbitration clause for resolution of all controversies arising under the collective–
bargaining agreements or the stipulations. The Union did not file an unfair labor practice
charge with the Board following the Company’s granting of the February 2009 wage increase.
40
On March 26, 2009, HR Director Torres–Morillo sent an e–mail to Union
Representative Maria Silva Cancel with an attached letter, addressed to all unit employees and
dated March 25, 2009, regarding a salary reduction for the unit employees. This e–mail, which
was received by the Union, on March 27, 2009, was the Company’s only notification to the
Union on the issue of a salary reduction prior to its implementation. On March 30, 2009, HR 45
Director Torres–Morillo sent the Company’s letter, dated March 25, 2009, to the unit
JD(ATL)–10–10
5
employees in Ponce, Aguadilla and Fajardo. In his letter, HR Director Torres–Morillo
informed the unit employees he had mistakenly granted a salary increase in February 2009, and
that their salaries would be adjusted to reflect the salary they received prior to February 2009.
Torres–Morillo explained in the letter that adjustments were not going to be made to the
payroll already paid in the month of February 2009 and the first biweekly pay period of March 5
2009. Salary reductions of 30 to 45 cents per hour were implemented on March 9, 2009, and
are reflected in the Company’s March 23, 2009 pay period. As of the trial herein, the unit
employees continue to receive the same amount they earned prior to the salary increase
implemented in February 2009.
10
The Company and the Union met on May 12, 2009 and discussed, for the first time, the
issue of the salary reduction, but did not reach any agreement. The Company and Union have
been engaged in collective–bargaining negotiations for successor contracts and have reached
an issue regarding salary increases. As of the trial herein, the Company’s negotiating position
concerning a salary increase is to grant a 45 cent salary increase, retroactively with a payment 15
plan, in exchange for the Union’s acceptance of a reduction of certain fringe benefits.
The parties stipulated that, if called, HR Director Torres–Morillo and Union
Representative Cancel would testify as follows:
20
Should Mr. Torres testify, he would testify that the increases given in 2009 to the union
employees were a product of his confusion on the interpretation of the stipulation signed
by the parties on January 14, 2009. That, upon discussing said increase with counsel and
other officers of the company, he became aware of his misinterpretation regarding the
giving of said increase and the impact on the scheduled negotiations for a new CBA 25
between the parties. It was his interpretation that he had committed a good faith error
regarding the wage increases, and that said error had to be corrected by withdrawing the
same and by providing notice to the union of said withdrawal. The withdrawal of the
erroneous wage increase would restore the status for proper good faith bargaining to be
carried out by the parties in order to reach a new CBA. The union did not respond to the 30
notice that was given until a union representative, in a bargaining session for a new
contract held on May 12, 2009, stated that they would file an unfair labor practice charge
regarding withdrawal of the increase.
Should Union Representative Marie S. Cancel testify she would state that, after receiving 35
the notice of salary reduction via e–mail sent by HR Director Torres, she called HR
Director Torres and told him said reduction in salary was illegal.
III. Analysis, Discussion and Conclusions
40
If a term or condition of employment concerns a mandatory subject of bargaining, an
employer generally may not discontinue that term or condition without first bargaining with the
union to impasse or agreement. See NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736 (1962). Stated differently,
during contract negotiations, an employer may not make unilateral changes to represented
employees’ terms and conditions of employment without bargaining to impasse. The Board 45
has recognized exceptions to this general rule where “economic exigencies” compel prompt
action, and where the union waives its right to bargain. See Tribune Publishing Co., 351 NLRB
196, 197 fn. 9 (2007). No economic exigencies or waivers are asserted in the instant case. It is
JD(ATL)–10–10
6
well settled, and beyond dispute, that an employer violates Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
when, absent waiver, it changes employees’ wages without giving the union an appropriate
opportunity to bargain about the changes. Wages are, of course, a mandatory subject of
bargaining NLRB v. Borg–Warner Corp. 356 U.S. 342, 348 (1958). Specifically the Board has
long held that an employer may not, without consulting with the union, unilaterally reduce 5
hourly pay rates of unit employees. See Huttig Sash and Door Company, Incorporated, 154
NLRB 811 (1965) enf. NLRB v. Huttig Sash & Door Co., 377 F.2d 964 (8th Cir. 1967).
A brief restatement of certain facts is helpful at this point. The parties’ collective
bargaining agreements and related stipulated extensions provided for annual wage increases of 10
45 cents per hour for professional employees, 40 cents per hour for technicians and 30 cents per
hour for all other employees at least from 2003 and through 2008. Starting in 2006, the
effective date for the increases was the first pay period of February. On January 14, 2009, the
parties agreed to extend their collective bargaining agreements on a day–to–day basis until
agreement or impasse. The January 14, 2009 extension is silent regarding wage increases; 15
however, during the first pay period of February 2009, the Company implemented wage
increases for employees in the units in the amounts specified in the prior extended collective
bargaining agreements. The Union did not protest nor file a charge with the Board regarding
the February 2009 wage increases. On March 9, 2009, the Company implemented wage
reductions for the unit employees of 30 to 45 cents per hour with the reductions reflected in the 20
employees’ March 23, 2009 pay. As of the trial herein, the employees have continued to
receive wages in the amounts they earned prior to the wage increases of February 2009. On
March 26, 2009, HR Director Torres–Morillo sent an electronic letter to Union Representative
Cancel with an attached memorandum addressed to the unit employees advising the employees
the Company had granted their February 2009 wage increases erroneously, and, advised their 25
wages would be reduced to the levels in effect before the February 2009 increase. This
electronic message was received by the Union on March 27, 2009, and the attached
memorandum was sent to the employees of the units on March 30, 2009.
Wages, especially wage reductions, are mandatory subjects of bargaining. The wage 30
reductions at issue herein were unilaterally implemented by the Company at a time when the
parties were in negotiations for successor collective bargaining agreements. The Union was
presented with a fait accompli with no opportunity to bargain concerning the wage reductions.
The wage reductions significantly and materially impacted every unit employee. I find the
Company’s unilateral actions violate Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.35
The fact Company HR Director Torre–Morillo, sometime after implementation of the
wage increases, concluded he had erroneously and mistakenly implemented the February 2009
wage increases does not justify the Company’s unilaterally rescinding the increases without
notifying the Union and bargaining with the Union over the rescissions. The Company may 40
well be able to correct the “erroneously” implemented wage increases; however, it was
obligated to notify and bargain with the Union when it decided to rescind the wage increases.
Furthermore, it is appropriate under these circumstances, to direct, as I do, that the Company
cease and desist from rescinding the wage increases and make the unit employees whole. See
Mid–Wilshire Health Care Center 337 NLRB 72, 73 (2001).45
JD(ATL)–10–10
7
Contrary to the contentions of the Company, there are no adverse legal consequences
for the Union not initially objecting to the wage increases in February 2009, nor does its not
objecting require a different result than that reached herein.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW5
1. The Company, Atlantis Health Care Group (P.R.) Inc., is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Union General, de Trabajadores de Puerto Rico, a/w Service Employees 10
International Union (SEIU), Local 1199, AFL–CIO is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. At all times since at least the year 2000, the Union has been the exclusive
collective–bargaining representative, within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act, of 15
appropriate units, of employees employed by the Company.
4. By unilaterally reducing the wage rates of the employees in the Units by 30 to
45 cents per hour the Company has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.20
5. The Company’s unfair labor practices specified in 4 above, affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY25
Having found the Company has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find it
necessary to order the Company to cease and desist there from and to take certain action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. In particular, to remedy the unlawful reduction
in hourly pay of the employees in the Units by 30 to 45 cents per hour, I recommend the 30
Company be ordered to make the unit employees whole for losses they suffered as a result of
the unlawful reduction in hourly pay, with interest as computed in New Horizons for the
Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987). The specific identification of the employees affected and
the precise amounts owed to them is, if necessary, left for determination at the compliance
stage of this proceeding. I also recommend the Company be ordered to restore the wages of 35
the employees in the Units as they existed prior to the implementation of the change and
bargain regarding any changes in wages.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended440

4 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended 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.
JD(ATL)–10–10
8
ORDER
The Company, Atlantis Health Care Group (P.R.) Inc., its officers, agents, successors
and assigns shall:5
1) Cease and desist from:
a) Unilaterally reducing the hourly wage rates, or otherwise altering the
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment of its employees, in the Units 10
represented by Union General, de Trabajadores de Puerto Rico, a/w Service Employees
International Union (SEIU), Local 1199, AFL–CIO without affording the Union notice and an
opportunity to bargain.
b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing 15
employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2) Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
a) Restore the wages of the employees in the Units as they existed prior to 20
the implementation of the change that reduced their wages.
b) Before implementing any reduction in the hourly wage rates or any other
changes affecting the wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment of
employees in the Units represented by the Union, notify and, on request, bargain with Union 25
General, de Trabajadores de Puerto Rico, a/w Service Employees International Union (SEIU),
Local 1199, AFL–CIO as the exclusive collective–bargaining representative of employees in
the following appropriate bargaining units:
Ponce Units30
UNIT A
INCLUDED: All non–professional employees, including: LPNs,
equipment technicians, maintenance technicians, reuse technicians, 35
clerical employees, receptionists, billing and collection employees
employed by the Company in its facilities located in Hospital San Lucas
II, Ponce, Puerto Rico.
EXCLUDED: All other employees, guards and supervisors as defined
by the Act.40
UNIT B
INCLUDED: All professional employees, including RNs, nutritionist
(dietician) and social workers employed by the Company at its facilities45
located in Hospital San Lucas II, Ponce, Puerto Rico.
EXCLUDED: All other employees, guards and supervisors as defined
by the Act.
JD(ATL)–10–10
9
Aquadilla Units
UNIT A
5
INCLUDED: All non–professional employees, including: LPNs,
equipment technicians, maintenance technicians, reuse technicians,
clerical employees, receptionists, billing and collection employees
employed by the Company in its facilities located in Good Samaritan
Community Hospital in Aguadilla, Puerto Rico.10
EXCLUDED: All other employees, guards and supervisors as defined
by the Act.
UNIT B
15
INCLUDED: All professional employees, including RNs, nutritionist
(dietician) and social workers employed by the Company at its facilities
located in Good Samaritan Community Hospital, in Aguadilla, Puerto
Rico.
EXCLUDED: All other employees, guards and supervisors as defined 20
by the Act.
Fajardo Unit
INCLUDED: All professional employees including registered nurses, 25
dieticians and social workers employed by the Company at its facilities
located in Fajardo, Puerto Rico.
EXCLUDED: All other employees, guards and supervisors as defined
by the Act.
30
c) Make employees in the Units whole for any loss of earnings and other
benefits suffered as a result of the unilateral reduction in the hourly wage rates of employees in
the Units represented by the Union in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the
decision.
35
d) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time as the
Regional Director for Region 24 of the Board may allow for good cause shown, provide, at a
reasonable place designated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, Social Security
payment records, time cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records, including an
electronic copy of the records if stored in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of 40
any back pay due under the terms of this Order.
e) Post, at its Ponce, Aguadilla and Fajardo, Puerto Rico, locations, copies
of the attached notice, marked “Appendix,”5 in English and Spanish. Copies of the Notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 24 of the Board, and after being signed by 45

5 If this order is enforced by a Judgement of the 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 JUDGEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING
AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD”
JD(ATL)–10–10
10
the Company’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Company and maintained for
60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, including all places where notices are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced or
covered by any other material. In the event that during the pendency of these proceedings the
Company has gone out of business or closed any of the facilities involved in these proceedings, 5
the Company shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the Notice, to all
employees employed at any time after March 2009.
f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional
Director for Region 24 of the National Labor Relations Board a sworn certification of a 10
responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the Company
has taken to comply.
Dated Washington, D.C., April 21, 2010
15
___________________________________
William N. Cates20
Associate Chief Judge
JD(ATL)–10–10
11
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 violated Federal labor law and
has ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally reduce the wage rates and other terms and conditions of
employment of our employees in the Units represented by Union General, de Trabajadores de
Puerto Rico, a/w Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 1199, AFL–CIO
without first affording the Union notice and an opportunity to bargain.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, before implementing any reduction in your hourly wage rates or other changes
affecting your wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment, notify and, on
request, bargain with Union General, de Trabajadores de Puerto Rico, a/w Service Employees
International Union (SEIU), Local 1199, AFL–CIO as the exclusive collective–bargaining
representative of our employees in the following appropriate bargaining units:
Ponce Units
UNIT A
INCLUDED: All non–professional employees, including: LPNs, equipment
technicians, maintenance technicians, reuse technicians, clerical employees,
receptionists, billing and collection employees employed by the Company in its
facilities located in Hospital San Lucas II, Ponce, Puerto Rico.
EXCLUDED: All other employees, guards and supervisors as defined by the
Act.
UNIT B
INCLUDED: All professional employees, including RNs, nutritionist (dietician)
and social workers employed by the Company at its facilities located in Hospital
San Lucas II, Ponce, Puerto Rico.
JD(ATL)–10–10
12
EXCLUDED: All other employees, guards and supervisors as defined by the
Act.
Aquadilla Units
UNIT A
INCLUDED: All non–professional employees, including: LPNs, equipment
technicians, maintenance technicians, reuse technicians, clerical employees,
receptionists, billing and collection employees employed by the Company in its
facilities located in Good Samaritan Community Hospital, in Aguadilla, Puerto
Rico.
EXCLUDED: All other employees, guards and supervisors as defined by the
Act.
UNIT B
INCLUDED: All professional employees, including RNs, nutritionist (dietician)
and social workers employed by the Company at its facilities located in Good
Samaritan Community Hospital, in Aguadilla, Puerto Rico.
EXCLUDED: All other employees, guards and supervisors as defined by the
Act.
Fajardo Unit
INCLUDED: All professional employees including registered nurses, dieticians
and social workers employed by the Company at its facilities located in Fajardo,
Puerto Rico
EXCLUDED: All other employees, guards and supervisors as defined by the
Act.
WE WILL restore the wages of our employees in the Units to the pay levels that existed prior
to the reduction of their wages in March 2009.
WE WILL make our employees whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a
result of the unilateral reductions in wages, plus interest.
ATLANTIS HEALTH CARE GROUP (P.R.) INC.
(Respondent)
Dated: _______________________ By: ________________________________________
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor Relations Act. It
conducts secret–ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it investigates and remedies unfair labor
practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may
speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s
website: www.nlrb.gov.
JD(ATL)–10–10
13
La Torre de Plaza, Suite 1002, 525 F. D. Roosevelt Avenue,
San Juan, PR 00918–1002
(787) 766–5347, Hours: 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT
BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR
COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER (787) 766–5377