Bargain Town of Ponce, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 21, 1972

200 N.L.R.B. 1085 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

BARGAIN TOWN OF PONCE
Bargain Town of Ponce, Inc, Erie Clothing, Inc, and
Forest Distributors and Federacion Puertorriquenz
de Sindicatos Democraticos Cases 24-CA-3006
and 24-CA-3089
December 21, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On May 30, 1972, Administrative Law Judge'
Lloyd Buchanan issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding Thereafter, the General Counsel filed
exceptions, and Respondent filed an answering
brief 2
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,3 and
conclusions4 of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Respondent, Bargain Town of
Ponce, Inc , Ponce, Puerto Rico, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the said recommended Order
i The title of Trial Examiner was changed to Administrative Law
Judge effective August 19 1972
2 Respondent filed no exceptions to the Decision
3 The Administrative Law Judge misstates the decision in The Laidlaw
Corporation 171 NLRB 1366 as standing for the proposition that strikers
who have been replaced may be discharged As he recognizes in his
discussion of that case and in his recommended Order it is clear that under
Laidlaw economic strikers who have been permanently replaced retain their
status as employees and if jobs are not available upon their unconditional
application for reinstatement are entitled to be placed on a preferential
hiring list
4 Although we agree with the findings and conclusions of the Admmis
trative Law Judge we disavow his criticism of the General Counsels
judgment in deciding that a hearing was warranted in the instant
proceeding
TRIAL EXAMINER' S DECISION
LLOYD BUCHANAN, Trial Examiner The consolidated
complaint herein (issued October 14, 1971, charges filed
April 2 and 21, September 29, and October 1, 1971), as
amended, alleges that the Company has violated Section
8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
73 Stat 519, by informing the Union that if employees,
allegedly engaged in an unfair labor practice strike, wanted
200 NLRB No 149
1085
to return to work, they would have to return as new
employees, and thereafter by rejecting the employees'
unconditional offer to return to work, and Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act by unlawfully interrogating employees concern-
ing union activities and membership, giving an impression
of surveillance of union activities, promising and granting
wage increases and providing free food and time off with
pay to induce employees to abandon their support of the
Union, transferring a store manager to induce employees
to abandon their union efforts, and promising improve-
ments on condition that employees cease to support the
Union The answer, as amended, denies the allegations of
violation, and alleges that offers to return to work were
conditional and further that the strikers had been perma-
nently replaced
The case was teed before me at Ponce, Puerto Rico, on
January 10 through 14 inclusive, and January 31 and
February 1, 1972 Pursuant to leave granted to all parties,
briefs have been filed by the General Counsel and the
Company, the time to do so having been extended
Upon the entire record in the case and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT (WITH REASONS THEREFOR) AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I THE COMPANIES' BUSINESS AND THE LABOR
ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
It is admitted and I find and conclude that Bargain
Town of Ponce, Inc, is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Bargain Town of Puerto Rico, Inc, that Bargain Town of
Ponce, Inc, is a part of a chain of self-service department
stores engaged in retail services to the general public on the
island of Puerto Rico, that during the past 12 months
Bargain Town of Ponce had a gross income of over
$500,000, and that during the same period it received
goods from points directly outside the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico valued at in excess of $50,000
It is further admitted and I find and conclude that Erie
Clothing, Inc, is a lessee-licensee of Respondent Bargain
Town of Ponce operating the men's and boys' department
of the Ponce store, that Respondent Bargain Town of
Ponce controls the operations of said department including
the personnel and labor relations policies affecting employ-
ees working at said department, and that Bargain Town of
Ponce and Erie Clothing Company are joint employers of
the employees working in the men's and boys' department
of the Ponce store
It is further admitted and I also find and conclude that
Forest Distributors is a lessee-licensee of Bargain Town of
Ponce operating the stationery and luggage department of
the Respondent Bargain Town of Ponce store in Ponce,
Puerto Rico, that Bargain Town of Ponce controls the
operations of said department including the personnel and
labor relations policies affecting employees working at said
department, and that Respondent Bargain Town of Ponce
and Forest Distributors are joint employers of the
employees working in the stationery and luggage depart-
ment of Bargain Town Store at Ponce, Puerto Rico
I also find and conclude that, as admitted, Bargain Town
of Ponce, Inc, Erie Clothing, Inc, and Forest Distributors
1086 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
are, and at all times material herein have been, employers
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act I also
find and conclude that, as admitted, Federacion Puertorri-
quena de Sindicatos Democraticos is, and has been at all
times material herein, a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
II THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A The Alleged Independent Violation of Section
8(a)(1)
The various employees herein, whether employed by Erie
or by Forest, will be referred to as employees of Bargain
Town, which latter was referred to throughout as the
Respondent or the Company and will be so referred to
herein On March 5, 1971, when the Union filed a petition
for election in Case 24-RC-4309, there were 43 store
employees, there were 44 in the week ending Sunday,
March 21, one having been hired after the petition was
filed
Without concession of violation, it was admitted that the
Company opposed unionization of the employees and that
it so advised its supervisors, instructing them however not
to question, threaten, or make promises to employees
although they could state the Company's position
Testimony was received from Velazquez, who was
president of the Union until June 27, 1971, and has since
been its advisor, and from various employees concerning
meetings of union supporters Organizational activities
among the employees commenced in February 1971 We
were told of meetings of union supporters at the end of
February and on March 3, 7, 11 or 12,20,22, and 25, and
of meetings of employees called by the Company on
March 9 and 22 Velazquez testified that he and the
employees had "agreed that every time the company had a
meeting or some abnormal situation should apse, the
employees would get together automatically "
Employee Diaz testified that on March 4 Store Manager
Leon approached her at work and asked where the union
meeting had been held the night before It was later
testified that this question was mentioned at a subsequent
meeting of the employees I do not credit Leon's denial,
and I find and conclude that, in the context of the incipient
organizational activity and other events, this constituted
unlawful interference Leon's statement that he did not
know until several days thereafter about the petition which
had been filed on March 5 is quite irrelevant to this issue
As noted below, I found employee Santiago to be an
unreliable witness I credit the denial by Perez, a
department manager, that about March 4 he questioned
her concerning the meeting at her home the night before
and told her that he knew of that meeting
We now come to the issue of promises and grants of
increases to the employees With receipt of a copy of the
representation petition filed by the Union, the Company
called a meeting of the employees on March 9 after the
store closed at 6 o'clock In an atmosphere of clear
distortion of the facts, there can be no doubt but that on
March 9 and at the other company meeting on March 22
Leon read without addition or modification a statement
prepared by company counsel The testimony of employ-
ees, including Feliciano, chairman of the strikers' board of
directors, that they did not see or did not recall whether or
not he read or had a paper before him reflects on their
credibility Not all denied seeing papers in Leon's hand,
one mentioned a notebook
Admittedly it is not claimed that the speeches read on
March 9 and March 22 were themselves violative Aside
from any general promise of increase, which I find Leon
did not make in his speeches on either date, I credit the
testimony that he did make individual promises about the
middle of March Beyond this, he admittedly called
employees in on March 22 and 23 and informed them of an
increase which each thus summoned would receive on the
25th (We do not at the moment consider the question of
legality of the increases now granted) It is clear that on the
occasion of earlier increases, promises had not preceded
actual receipt, and the employees' first knowledge thereof
was acquired when they were paid, they had no prior
notice, whether of 2 days or 2 weeks (One witness testified
that the Company on one occasion, about 1968, did not
discuss with her "an appraisal regarding a wage increase"
before she received it, but did at that time ask her how
much she was making) The promises or announcements of
increase now made, in the context of the organizational
campaign and the then imminent election, were violative,
and I so find and conclude The questions of promises and
grants of increases will be further adverted to in connec-
tion with the cause or causes of the strike
We must distinguish between the actual grant of wage
increases made on March 25, effective for the previous
payroll period beginning March 15, and the earlier
promises of such increases The record suggests that except
for a statutory minimum wage increase at the end of
November 1968 (no increases appear to have been given
early in 1969), periodic increases were given in February or
March of at least the last few years including 1971 except
in those cases where the first anniversary of the employee's
date of hire was remote from the February-March period I
find and conclude that, aside from such periodicity, the
decision to grant increases to 29 of the 44 store employees
as of March 15, 1971, was adequately explained as having
been initiated earlier and being in conformity with past
practice The General Counsel has correctly recognized
these as "the annual wage increases " Feliciano, who will
be more prominently referred to below, testified that he
had received increases before although he did not recall
when and related Leon's reference to the fact that "every
year the company revised the employees' salaries",
Feliciano does not appear to have contradicted or
questioned Leon's statement It was stipulated that in
February or March 1970 (one of them on April 1), 24 of 33
employees received increases If increases at that time
would also redound to the Company's advantage, they
were not improper if otherwise lawful The questions of
promises and grants of increases will be further adverted to
as we consider the causes of the strike
Santiago testified that at the store meeting on March 22
the Company provided food and drinks for the employees
and also paid them for a full day although the workday
ended at noon, plus double for the time spent at the
meeting This was embellished by the testimony, true as far
BARGAIN TOWN OF PONCE
as it went, that there was no charge to any employee for the
party The misleading effect of such testimony was quickly
dispelled as it was brought out that, as required by local
law, the Company always pays for a full day on a half
holiday and in addition pays double for time spent after 12
noon One can but wonder about the investigation which
prompted a claim of unlawful action by the Company
when payment for the half holiday was, as recognized at
the trial, required by law I find and conclude that this
allegation of violation has not been sustained
Also alleged as a violative "concession to the employees
who desired the removal of said supervisor and to induce
them to abandon their efforts to designate the union as
their bargaining agent" is the transfer of Store Manager
Medina and appointment of Leon as his successor on
March 22 Not only was the transfer adequately explained,
but Santiago told us early that the employees "were quite
comfortable with [Medina] and thought the world of"
him, and spoke of taking up a collection to hold a party for
him This is confused by the testimony of employees
Gonzalez and Feliciano that Gonzalez on March 23
charged Leon with having "push[ed] on" Medina until he
finally got him out (this further indicating no concession to
the employees), and Leon allegedly replying that the
employees put Medina out (this conceivably to be
construed as a concession to them) I find and conclude
that Medina's transfer was not violative
In support of the allegation that Leon promised
improvements in working conditions but warned that in
return the employees had to discontinue their support of
the Union, Santiago testified first that she did not recall
whether Leon had said anything to her about handling
certain material but, her attention called to this, she told us
that in March he said that the rugs were too heavy and that
he would see if he could get someone to help There was
apparently no such warning as is alleged of the need to
discontinue support of the Union as a quid pro quo
Santiago first placed this conversation in the middle of
March, on cross-examination she did not recall the date
"too well", on redirect, she told us that it took place after
March 9 Aside from the question whether a promise of
help with heavy rugs may not be made during an
organizational campaign (we certainly do not have such
evidence of attendant circumstances as might indicate
violation), Santiago's testimony was hardly reliable Other
alleged promises placed in Leon's speech of March 22 must
fall as we recall that he read the speech and that it was not
violative I find and conclude that this allegation of
conditional promises of improvements has not been
sustained
Employee Rivera testified that on March 25 her
supervisor, Morales, asked whether Rivera was in the
Union and what she thought of it, that she replied that she
was and volunteered that she had filled out a union card,
explaining that she had joined because she thought it
would enable the employees to present their problems to
the Company I credit Morales' version that she asked
Rivera why all of the employees had for several days acted
1 The GeneraLCounsel---.',-- to this as an emergency meeting
prompted by the employees concern over the promises, begun 2 weeks
before, of wage increases and the party earlier on March 22 He overlooks
1087
so distant, that Rivera replied that they were thinking of a
union, and that when she asked why, Rivera replied that it
was for their own convenience While Rivera testified that
at the meeting at Santiago's house that evening there was
discussion of Morales' alleged interrogation earlier that
day, it may be noted that Velazquez and others did not
mention this in their detailed recitals of the prestrike
interference and discussion that evening or as a reason for
the strike I find and conclude that Morales did not
unlawfully interrogate Rivera
B The Alleged Violation of Section 8(a)(3)
Having found unlawful interference, we now consider
whether it was a cause, if not the sole cause, for a strike
which began on March 26 From Velazquez, who was not
necessarily the best prepared or primed (I use the words
advisedly in light of the volunteered and indicated attitude
or responses by some of the witnesses), and from various
employee witnesses we were favored with alleged reasons
and potential reasons for strike action We shall see that
these witnesses minimized to varying degrees or omitted
some of these alleged reasons, emphasis understandably, as
we shall see, being placed not on the promises of increases
previously and unlawfully made but on the actual grant of
increases on March 25 The only alleged violation of
sufficient significance which occurred after news of
postponement of the election proceeding hearing was the
grant of increases, other violations occurred earlier-and
the postponement and employee reaction to these could
not be held to lend an unfair labor practice color to the
subsequent strike when admittedly they had been consid-
ered and the decision had been made not to strike
The General Counsel's dilemma lies in the fact that,
aside from the question whether the grant of increases was
violative, it does not credibly appear that the grant
prompted the strike, while, if earlier violations are claimed
to have caused it, it was decided 3 days earlier and before
knowledge of the delay in the representation proceeding,
not to go on strike
In his detailed testimony on direct examination concern-
ing the meeting' at Santiago's home on the evening of
March 22, Velazquez made no mention of the postpone-
ment of the Board hearing or of any reference to it at that
meeting On cross-examination he testified that he learned
on March 22 from the union secretary that the hearing had
been postponed, at the end of the week he spoke to a
Board representative but did not ask the reason for the
postponement he "expected to find out why " Considering
the importance to the Union of the representation hearing,
noted in its strike leaflets and picket signs, I do not believe
Velazquez' testimony that on March 22 he did know that
the hearing had been postponed, but only that, not the
reason Questioned thereafter whether the employees at the
meeting of March 25, when it was decided to strike, asked
about the election, Velazquez told us that they did not,
that he thinks that they had the information because he
had told them on March 22 that no date had been set for
an election, it had been postponed (although he had not
Velazquez testimony that it had been agreed to meet every time the
Company held a meeting In any event as we shall see it was several days
before it was decided at a later meeting to manifest that concern by striking
1088 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
asked and did not know why) Contrariwise employee de
Rivera testified that at the March 25 meeting Velazquez
did discuss the postponement of the preelection hearing
The election proceeding had earlier been important and,
as picket signs and leaflets indicated, was again if not still
so after the strike commenced But temporarily it was not
important it was not apparently discussed on March 22,
then it was, and according to Velazquez it was not
mentioned on March 251
The attempt to avoid any suggestion of a nonviolative
cause of the strike was thus initiated by the first witness,
Velazquez, who testified that at the March 25 meeting,
when it was decided to strike, the employees did not ask
when the election would be held, he thought that they had
the information since he had stated at the March 22
meeting that the preelection hearing had been postponed
According to Santiago, when Velazquez on March 22 said
"something like" they had postponed the hearing, even at
that time there was no comment by an employee We need
not here or with respect to other witnesses detail all of the
evidence of unreliability, much of it apparent in the
transcript A great portion of the testimony was character-
ized less by an attempt to inform or enlighten than by an
attitude of defiant insistence that the Employer was
seeking advantage over the employees
When Gonzalez told us that in the discussion at
Santiago's house on March 22 mention was made of the
postponement of the representation hearing, he noticeably
volunteered, "that we did not attach much importance to
that " (Gonzalez would also have us believe that, when a
customer told him that he would not buy at the store
because of a leaflet which he had received, he did not read
the leaflet although he saw it) Rivera told us that,
concerned as she was with organizational activity, compa-
ny violations, and presumably with representation by the
Union, the postponement of the preelection hearing was of
little or no interest to her, she testified that she did not
remember whether a Board hearing had been set for March
25 or that it had been postponed
This does not negate the possibility, had this been shown,
that unfair labor practices might also have caused the
strike But it does reflect on the credibility of witnesses on
whose testimony of subjective reaction or motive the
General Counsel would have us rely for a finding that this
was an unfair labor practice strike Further as we consider
the reasons for a strike, our concern is with actual unfair
labor practices rather than with mere and erroneous beliefs
that certain acts were violative
It is true that if one of the reasons for the strike was an
unfair labor practice, it would be in order to find that this
was an unfair labor practice strike even if other reasons
existed which would not make it so We shall consider not
only the testimony directly offered in this connection, but
also the absence of reference to unfair labor practices while
other charges were hurled both on picket signs (with one
exception to be noted) and in various leaflets prepared and
distributed by the strikers
In all of his recital of details of the meeting at Santiago's
home on March 22, Velazquez did not refer to his
statement to the employees, brought out on cross-examina-
tion, that the election set for March 25 had been
postponed At this later point he testified only that, after
receipt by the Board on March 20 of the Company's
request for postponement of the hearing set for March 25,
and cancellation of that hearing, he mentioned the
postponement at the meeting on March 22 He testified
only that he did not know why the hearing had been
canceled Active and intelligent, Velazquez would have
inquired concerning the reason for the postponement of
the preelection hearing before informing the employees of
it on March 22 That he did not so inquire is hardly to be
believed An alleged failure to mention such an inquiry
would be consistent with the attempt to muumize, even
ignore, this as the reason for the strike
The Union's explanation for the position that this was an
unfair labor practice strike appears in Velazquez' statement
at the meeting in the evening of March 25 that he
considered the increases granted, as distinguished from
promises of increase, the latter an unfair labor practice,
and by the employees' statement, testified to by Santiago,
that it appeared to be done to keep them out of the Union
Indeed although he testified that he had no doubt that
there had been quite a few unfair labor practices, which he
described, Velazquez sought to pinpoint the reason for the
strike as he now told us that the meeting on March 25 at
Santiago's house was called because the promised increase
in salary had become effective that day Later, on cross-
examination, Santiago testified that Leon's promise of an
increase, made to her on March 10, had been discussed at a
meeting in her home which she placed on March 1 I or 12
This was evidently the meeting which elsewhere was placed
on March 10, no strike was called at that time
Aside from the invalid distinction between the earlier
promise of the increases as not being an unfair labor
practice and the actual grant of increases on March 25 as
being such and a reason to strike, I do not credit
Velazquez' testimony that he made such distinction, that
testimony being offered to explain that, not having called
the strike earlier, the strikers on his advice did so after
receipt of the increase on the 25th Beyond the attempt to
distinguish between promise of increase and grant of
increase as an unfair labor practice and a cause of the
strike, we may well question whether the actual receipt of
the increases so aroused and antagonized the employees as
to lead them to strike If earlier that day, Rivera told
Morales that she had filled out a union card, there was no
suggestion at that time that she thought the Company's
action in announcing and later granting increases was
untoward although at the meeting that evening she
allegedly screamed for a strike She admitted that she may
have said to Morales that the Union was offering job
security, better salaries, and a better medical plan, and that
she did tell him how good the Union was
The tangible factor in the increase, which made Rivera
happy, is clear Not so the intangible despite her testimony
that what Velazquez said was an unfair labor practice
"made an impression" on her to the point that she
screamed for a strike Here again we note Rivera's
testimony that she remembered nothing of the postpone-
ment of the hearing which had been scheduled as a
preliminary to the representation election
With this distinction between the increases and the prior
BARGAIN TOWN OF PONCE 1089
promises of increase, it should be noted that at neither the
March 22 nor the March 25 meeting at Santiago's house
was there even a reference to the notice admittedly given
by Leon on March 22 and 23 to those employees who were
to receive retroactive increases on March 25 Any such
reference, like the promises alleged and found to have
constituted unlawful interference, all of these prior to
Velazquez' actual knowledge that the preelection confer-
ence had been postponed, would further have pointed up
the later postponement in the representation proceeding as
the reason for the strike
The testimony that the grant of increases prompted the
strike is quite understandable Were it an unfair labor
practice, it would be the only such claimed to have
occurred after postponement of the representation hearing
and the decision on March 25 to go on strike To avoid a
finding that the postponement in fact caused the strike, the
employees not having been moved so to act by prior
events, the payment of the promised increases on March 25
was now cited and carefully emphasized Feliciano, for
example, did not even recall reference at the March 22
meeting to postponement of the hearing but, asked about
his reference to "dilatory tactics" in a union leaflet, he now
added reference to unfair labor practices Without exhaust-
ing similar testimony, I recall that the witness De Rivera,
also among the last of the General Counsel's witnesses, was
obviously anxious to tell us that at the March 25 meeting
mention was made of Leon's question to Diaz 3 weeks
earlier Other witnesses did not advert to this as occurring
at that meeting (De Rivera testified on the morning after
Feliciano was questioned about "dilatory tactics ")
While other company acts, such as company meetings
and a promise of a medical plan, were cited as a cause of
the strike, these had all occurred earlier and we recall the
definite disclaimer by Velazquez of evidence of unfair
labor practices as well as the decision on March 22 not to
strike Reliance was thus placed on the actual payment of
the increases on March 25 as the cause of the strike But we
recall that the pattern of spring increases was established
long before the advent of the Union 2
On the other hand, even had the pattern of such grants
not been established, and the increases of March 25 been
found to be violative, the question would still remain
whether those increases were a cause of the strike In that
connection we cannot overlook the fact that, with the
promises admittedly made on March 22 and the knowledge
that they would be retroactive and payable 3 days later, the
group was not on that day impelled to strike even though
the issue was at that time raised and one employee shrieked
for a strike
I do not credit Velazquez' testimony of his explanation
to the employees on March 22 that he did not believe that
a strike at that time would have been an unfair labor
practice strike We have the contrary and credible
testimony by Gonzalez that as early as March 7 (Rivera
placed this between March 10 and 15) Velazquez told the
employees that promises of increases of salary would
constitute unfair labor practices, but despite such promis-
es, at no time thereafter and prior to knowledge of further
delay in the representation proceeding did the employees
strike The connection between the representation proceed-
ing and the decision to strike is further indicated in a prior
statement by Gonzalez as stipulated Only because this
issue is so important and some of the evidence may, as
sometimes happens, be overlooked, further evidence will
be detailed concerning contemporaneous events and their
indication of the reason for the strike, all of this showing
that the claim that this was an unfair labor practice strike is
made out of whole cloth Nor do I assume that the
employees were otherwise ready to strike but, thus
impelled, would have been dissuaded by such an explana-
tion by Velazquez As noted, on the basis of contempora-
neous events and the very declaration (reference here is to
a leaflet and picket signs) issued by the strikers when the
strike commenced, the increases on March 25, even were
they violative, were no more a cause of the strike than were
the promise on March 22 and the other prior violations
found
The strike, I find, was in fact prompted by the Board's
failure to proceed with the representation proceeding, what
was later cited as an unfair labor practice was an
afterthought3 explanation offered to support the claim
here made that this was an unfair labor practice strike
A strike could have been called when unfair labor
practices were committed and because of them, but this
was not done Velazquez was less than candid as he sought
to show the grant and receipt of increases as an unfair
labor practice basis for the strike and to avoid any
suggestion that it was caused by any act or circumstance
which did not constitute an unfair labor practice, particu-
larly the postponement of the preelection conference
Velazquez' alleged misconception with respect to what
constituted unfair labor practices would not itself prevent a
finding that this was an unfair labor practice strike if the
employees, believing that promises of increases did not
warrant a strike, did in fact take action because the
increases were granted to undermine the Union But not
only were the increases lawfully granted but, as already
stated, the delay in the representation procedures, not the
increases, prompted the strike
Both Velazquez and Santiago sought to remove as a
cause of the strike the change of managers Whether or not
this was one of the reasons is not important if, as already
noted, one or more reasons were based on company unfair
labor practices But their contradictory testimony in this
respect further reflects on their credibility and, beyond
that, persuades me that the General Counsel' s witnesses
were unreliable in this connection as they strained to
eliminate this alleged unfair practice as even one of the
reasons for the strike Thus Velazquez testified that the
change of managers and other events were discussed at the
meeting at Santiago's house on the evening of March 22,
that employees thought that unfair labor practices had thus
been committed, and that an employee suggested that they
2 Cf the recent Virgin Islands Spinning Corporation 194 NLRB No 147
where the Board declared Moreover there is no showing that the bonus
program was instituted to interfere with the election nor is there any
showing that this was the first bonus paid under the program (Fns
omitted )
3 This is at least consistent with the fact that the first charge herein was
filed on April 2
1090 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
go on strike the following day Santiago testified on the
other hand that, while the group was at that time annoyed
by the change of management, they did not want to strike
they were "just annoyed "
Velazquez at one point maintained that the company
party on March 22 when the change in store managers was
announced and which was discussed at the meeting that
evening was an unfair labor practice Yet the employees on
his advice at that time rejected the suggestion that they go
on strike Here is further indication that the strike was not
called because of any company violation, actual or fancied,
but because of the postponement of the preelection
conference
We have considered in detail the testimony concerning
the reasons for the strike given by the General Counsel's
first four and presumably most important witnesses
Employee Serrano, the next witness called, cited specifical-
ly Leon's alleged promise of a good medical plan in his
speech to the employees on March 9 This alleged promise
needs to be considered as a possible reason for the strike
even though it was not alleged as violative interference But
examination of a copy of Leon's speech indicates that,
rather than making a promise in this connection, Leon
pointed to the advantageous medical insurance plan which
he testified has been in effect for many years and covers
the employees of the Ponce and other stores
Testimony from the General Counsel' s witnesses con-
cernmg the reasons for the strike is self-serving But from
the nature of the issue we are to a great extent dependent
on such testimony to explain attitude and what prompted
the action taken On the other hand, we need not entirely
rely on such testimony it is no more determinative than
are statements of objective where the totality of conduct
indicates a different object 4 Other circumstances and
evidence concerning them may be considered as well as the
very credibility of the witnesses who testified concerning
their own motivation and reasons Bearing in mind that the
self-serving statements do not lend themselves to direct
refutation, the nature of subsequent statements which are
also self-serving , and the statements of reasons which
admittedly did not cite unfair labor practices, I find and
conclude on the basis of the oral testimony that the strike
was not prompted by unfair labor practices and that it was
an economic strike The testimony of the witnesses on this
issue leaves very little if any basis for believing that unfair
labor practices in fact and even in part prompted the
strike-this quite aside from Rivera's apparent admission
that her reason or "intention" in going on strike was to
have an election In this connection can also be noted
Leon's testimony that, when some of the strikers called at
his office on March 29, further considered below, Serrano
declared that the employees had gone on strike because the
Company had not appeared for the representation hearing
at the Board office Recalled on rebuttal, Serrano did not
deny this We need not exhaust the testimony on this point
It was firmly insisted throughout that the strike was not
prompted by the promise of increase on March 22 but by
the actual grant on March 25 If such insistence could serve
to avoid a finding that the strike actually was prompted by
the postponement of the preelection hearing (certainly not
an unfair labor practice), it also served to transfer emphasis
from the promises , which have been found to be violative,
to the grants of increase , which were not Finally, if the
oral testimony left any doubt concerning the reasons for
and the nature of the strike, it would be dispelled by the
documentary evidence before us
The board of directors , which was designated by the
strikers and which led the strike , issued several leaflets
Whether in fact led by the Union or by their board of
directors , or both, the strikers were directly and sufficiently
connected with the leaflets which they prepared , issued, or
distributed Certainly, as we reflect on Velazquez ' claimed
unawareness of the distribution of union leaflets and in
some cases even of their preparation , what was said in the
leaflets and what they failed to say is at least closely
connected with the strikers and the reasons for the strike as
would be had the Union as their representative actively
directed the strike instead of merely "counselling" as
Velazquez testified This is not to minimize the Union's
connection, even sponsorship, of the strike Having
testified that on March 22 he advised against the strike and
that he took a different position on March 25 , when the
strike was unanimously voted, Velazquez later spoke of the
unfair labor practices "from our point of view "
Whatever Velazquez' reasons for attempting to establish
different responsibility (this again reflecting on his credibil-
ity) of the Union and the strikers for the strike activity, the
Union's connection with the strike, its initiation and
continuance , is clear from the relationship indicated
between Velazquez as union president and the strikers In
the face of the ado made in this connection , it was later
testified that Velazquez participated in the drafting of all
but two of the leaflets noted as distributed by the strikers,
these with a single exception bearing the imprimatur of the
strikers' board of directors It was finally agreed that the
leaflets here presented as distributed by the strikers are to
be accepted as indicating their reasons for striking
regardless of the Union's participation in their preparation
or distribution , even as it was earlier declared and agreed
that the strikers were connected with the placards and the
leaflets which were distributed by them
On March 26 a leaflet was prepared , noted as sponsored
by the board of directors, and distributed that afternoon
The first and penultimate sentences read as follows
We wish to advise the customers of Bargain Town
and the public in general that due to the fact that we
have wanted to avail ourselves of our legitimate right to
form our Union and the employer refuses to recognize
that right, by using dilatory tactics, refusing to appear
before the Labor Relations Board to sign the pertinent
agreements, we have been forced to declare a work
stoppage to demand that such right be recognized
We also wish to advise the Company that our attitude
is peaceful, and that all that we are asking is that a date
for the election be fixed
If we separate from the rest of the leaflet the phrase "our
legitimate right to form our Union," it can be construed to
cover every organizational activity and to refer to any
4 N L R B v Knitgoods Workers Union Local 155 I L G W U AFL-CIO
[Boulevard Knitwear Corp ] 403 F 2d 388 390-391 (C A 2)
BARGAIN TOWN OF PONCE 1091
unfair labor practice But the immediate context and the
remainder of the leaflet indicate that the strikers' concern
was directed solely toward the Employer's alleged refusal
by "dilatory tactics" in the representation proceeding, and
if that phrase does not appear sufficiently to indicate the
strikers ' only expressed grievance, it is explained as the
refusal to appear for Board hearings To say that this
contemporaneous expression did not correctly set forth the
strikers' motives and reasons is not only to set ourselves up
as better judges of what they had in mind, but it would run
directly contrary to the later expressed statement in the
leaflet "that all that we are asking is that a date for the
election be fixed "
I do not credit the statement by Feliciano, who drafted
the leaflet, that he did not consider the first sentence as
"the main reason" he was "a little dissatisfied " Selected
as chairman of the strikers' board of directors, he is neither
naive nor unintelligent Whatever might be overlooked in
drafting a leaflet, "the main reason" would be stated on
first impulse, particularly in a case where each witness
clearly distinguished between the so-called dilatory tactics
and the alleged unfair labor practices, minimizing the
former and emphasizing the latter In the face of denials by
Velazquez and others, Feliciano testified that dilatory
tactics were mentioned at several employee meetings
So far from establishing any unfair labor practice as a
cause for the strike the witnesses and the documents have
convinced me that the causes, whether the representation
case delay, the change of managers, or the Company's
lawful expression of opposition to the Union, were so-
called economic reasons the claimed outrage and action
based on the wage increases which they received and on
any other alleged unfair labor practice was an afterthought
developed to meet the law in this respect and to support
the claim for reinstatement
This conclusion is reached on the basis of the evidence
offered by the General Counsel, who undertook a
yeoman's task in the face of convincing proof The
Company's testimony fills in the interstices and carries the
conclusion beyond even a reasonable doubt
Also received in evidence because of a slight connection
offered by one of the General Counsel 's witnesses, is a
leaflet apparently issued by the Pro-Independence Militant
Movement of Puerto Rico This leaflet refers to the Board's
delay in connection with the representation proceeding
and undertakes to quote Velazquez in that connection
While the leaflet does not appear to have been issued by
the board of directors, we shall see that another leaflet
admittedly prepared by Velazquez and Feliciano similarly
lacked such notation But more serious is the fact that the
only testimony which could conceivably connect distribu-
tion of these leaflets with the Union is Gonzalez' that he
saw it in a customer's hand about 2 weeks after the strike
began (With that, the leaflet was received in evidence for
further consideration and possibly further proof) This
alone did not establish the Union's responsibility for the
leaflet
Nor can the document be considered as an admission by
the Union that the strike was economic Under the
circumstances, we should not impose on the Union or the
strikers here the burden of disavowing responsibility for
the acts of another group whose own responsibility has not
been established Whether the so-called Pro-Independence
Movement was here fishing in troubled waters is not our
present concern Adoption of these leaflets by the strikers
or the Union has not been shown Indeed we are not
concerned with the policy vector of the Pro-Independence
party, nor with the question whether it was used to
promote the interests of the strikers-or vice versa Our
concern is with the result of any such policies or promotion
to the extent that they were made manifest in the strikers'
activities, the latter being in issue here
Another and longer document prepared by Feliciano
and Velazquez and sponsored by the board of directors
was issued on March 30 or 31 It refers to a series of unfair
practices and mentions the Union's request for a concilia-
tor and the Company's refusal to enter into any agreement
This document runs the gamut of various violations alleged
in the complaint, including reference to the change of store
managers as a sop or concession to the employees although
as we have seen the testimony indicates that the employees
did not seek a change While the leaflet declares inter multa
alta that the Company offered salary increases "and they
also did it," such reference among the many other alleged
unfair labor practices cited lacks the emphasis which is
now claimed for it Further, whatever may be said about
the leaflet as being inflammatory, attacking the Board as
much as the Employer, it lacks the spontaneity of the
earlier leaflets and is no more than an after-the-fact self-
serving statement Relevant in this connection are the facts
of contact by Velazquez with an attorney on March 26 and
the latter's direct communication with the Company on the
30th
A leaflet distributed about April 12 makes no mention of
the wage increase or other alleged unfair labor practices it
does refer to the Company's failure or refusal to recognize
the Union, but this is neither an unfair labor practice nor
an indication of an unfair labor practice strike This issue
will be met further as we consider direct communications
between the Company and the strikers The leaflet also
cites the issue of appropriate unit raised in the course of
the representation proceeding
The last in our series is a leaflet drafted by Velazquez
and Feliciano in mid-April although not marked as issued
by the board of directors It seeks the support of the public
for the employees' right to be organized These leaflets do
not support the claim that this was an unfair labor practice
strike
Lest there be any lingering doubt concerning the reason
for the strike, we should note Feliciano's testimony that on
March 26, the first day of the strike, he read over a
loudspeaker on the picket line from the first leaflet noted
above and declared in substance that the employees were
on strike because the Company had not allowed them an
election and was not appearing at Board hearings in that
connection He testified further that 2 or 3 days later he
spoke over the loudspeaker concerning some of the alleged
unfair labor practices Here again we have a contrast
between the reasons stated at the commencement of the
strike, as contemporaneous evidence, and those declared a
few days later, after consultation with an attorney
Also to be considered are the picketing strikers' signs as
1092 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
indicative of the reason or reasons for the strike Serrano
testified that he prepared all of the signs on March 26 and
27, some 15 or 18 in all, the stock being in equal amounts
white, pink, and blue, and all being approximately 3 feet by
2 feet in size except the last 2, which he made after he
halved one of the pieces of cardboard as they were running
out of material These last two were obviously of the same
color Serrano remembered that one of the two declared
that the Company resorts to unfair labor practices, he
made no reference to it as a replacement for an earlier sign,
and did not recall the legend on the other small one
If we credit Serrano's denial that one sign, allegedly
larger than the others, referred to the Company's dilatory
tactics, we cannot credit Leon's testimony concerning the
existence of such a sign But neither can we credit
Santiago's testimony that the sign which claimed that the
Company resorted to unfair labor practices was smaller
than all of the others and uniquely blue (It would be
smaller than most of the others if made of a half sheet, but
there would be a second small sign, as Serrano testified)
Santiago then told us that this small unfair labor practice
sign became wet (no other appears to have gotten wet
although testifying, contrary to Serrano who prepared the
signs with the help of two employees on March 26 and 27,
Velazquez told us that some of the original signs were
spoiled by rain) and was replaced by a larger sign, which
was pink, although it does not appear that there were larger
signs after the "last" two small onesI
Beyond the fact that the same infirmity attaches to a
later printed sign as to a later leaflet, it must be recognized
that a lone sign of 15 or 18 which charges unfair labor
practices in general terms does not indicate an unfair labor
practice cause of the strike when the strikers cited as unfair
labor practices company practices which were not unlawful
and when the strike had not been called in response to acts
which did constitute unfair labor practices The election
proceeding delay could be cited as unfair by unhappy
strikers, so could the grant of increases, also prior acts
which we have found violative Such a sign, whatever its
color, its size, its timeliness, did not indicate which of the
Company's acts it purported to cite, violative or not We
find no light here on the reason for the strike Indeed to the
extent that we have been favored with a description of the
other signs, it appears that the pickets were not concerned
with unfair labor practices and certainly did not emphasize
them (Rivera disingenuously testified that this sign was in
another color to attract attention It presumably shared
attention with other blue or pink signs, the quantity of
material in each color, we recall, being the same as in the
white We need not debate whether, because it was smaller,
its share of attention was smaller or larger than that of the
other signs )
We come now to the issues whether the strikers
unconditionally offered to return to work and whether the
Company refused to reinstate them We recall Velazquez'
insistence on distinction between the Union and the
strikers as he maintained that he merely counseled them
not to strike and then to do so, and that he assisted in
preparation of some of the strike leaflets As noted, the
attempted distinction is meaningless insofar as the issues in
the case are concerned except for the reflection on
credibility In connection with requests to return to work,
there is no question but that Velazquez was the formal and
official representative of the strikers and that he dealt with
Alvarado, the attorney who communicated with the
Company on their behalf
We recall also that on March 26, when the strike
commenced, Velazquez spoke to Alvarado concerning it
The latter, otherwise engaged, telephoned Leon on March
30 Alvarado testified that he asked Leon whether there
was anything that he (Alvarado) could do to get the
workers to return to work, and that Leon replied that they
could get back to work because they were employees of the
Company Leon suggested that Alvarado come over and
talk and, with a representative of the Bureau of Concilia-
tion and Arbitration of the Labor Department of Puerto
Rico, Alvarado went to the store that afternoon
Alvarado continued that one of the company representa-
tives declared that the employees could return to work,
they were not fired Alvarado then asked whether the
Company would fire the replacements and, receiving a
reply in the negative, said that he would have to consult the
employees He left the meeting to talk with the strikers,
who were waiting outside the store He told us further that
the strikers "decided that they could not get back to their
job because the company, after a short time, will
discriminate against them, that they did not have any
warranty of their job they thought that the
company would not fire the replacements because the
company wants them to vote against, vote against the
union in an election "
Having said that the strikers could return to work, the
Company was not responsible for their anticipation of
possible discrimination Most significant here is the
employees' expressed concern with an election in the face
of all of the earlier testimony and attempts to minimize
that factor as the motivating reason for the strike
Alvarado testified further that he told the strikers that
they could return to work and convince the new employees
to support the Union, but the strikers decided not to
return He and a committee of three strikers returned to the
company office and asked for "another proposition to get
an agreement, because the workers have decided not to get
back to their job, because they were afraid of
discrimination against them " The Company replied that it
had no alternative proposal but would consult its attorneys
and let Alvarado know Clearly to this point the offer of
return was conditional and the strike had not been
converted into an unfair labor practice strike Nor was
there here any limitation on the status or rights of
returning strikers
Leon testified to a meeting at his office on March 29,
which preceded Alvarado's visit noted above As spokes-
man for a group of five strikers, Feliciano asked when the
Company would give them an election date The reply was
that that was up to the Board When Feliciano asked about
the employees returning to work, he was told that they
could any time that they wanted to Feliciano then
declared that the replacements would first have to be fired
and, when the Company replied that they would be kept as
long as they did their work, he stated that the strike would
continue until the replacements were fired At this point,
BARGAIN TOWN OF PONCE 1093
striker Serrano noted that there had been three notices for
the Company to appear before the Board in the election
proceeding but that it had refused so to appear, that a
hearing had been scheduled on March 25, and the
employees struck because the Company did not appear
This last statement appears to be overly pat and conven-
ient to the Company's case, but Leon's testimony concern-
ing this meeting and what was said , the rest of it being
entirely consistent with the other evidence , stands uncon-
tradicted Here is more testimony concerning the reason
for the strike and the conditional nature of the offer to
return
Of the employees listed on the appendix attached to the
complaint, 28 were named in the charges filed herein on
April 21 and September 29 They presumably were the
strikers together with the other four, who were named in
the charge filed on October 1 With replacements hired
after the strike commenced, there were approximately 7 or
10 unfilled places by March 30, and approximately 3 to 5
by April 1, all of the strikers had been replaced by April
19
Alvarado testified that on April 1, 2 days after the
meeting in the company office, he telephoned Markolf, the
Company's executive vice president, and told him that the
employees were willing to return provided that the
Company would not discriminate against them and
without any condition that the replacements be fired, and
that Markolf replied that the employees would have to fill
out employment applications as new employees in proba-
tionary status Although this was markedly different from
what Leon had admittedly told Alvarado dust 2 days
before, about the strikers being employees and able to
return, Alvarado did not point that out and made no
protest
Markolf's version of this conversation was that Alvarado
asked what the Company was going to do with the
replacements, that he replied that as long as their work was
satisfactory, they had permanent jobs, that Alvarado
stated that he did not think that the employees would
return to work, to which Markolf replied that the door was
open, they could return as long as they were not guilty of
picket line misconduct, and that Alvarado thereupon
declared that he was sure that they would not return
Markolf denied that he had said the strikers would have to
return as new employees
We next have a letter from Alvarado to the Company on
April 17, followed in rapid succession by Markolf's reply
on April 18, another from Alvarado on April 19, and again
one from Markolf on April 20 These respective self-
serving letters do not suggest modification of any impres-
sions or findings based on the evidence concerning earlier
events Indeed the first of these letters, Alvarado's of April
17, further verifies the earlier insistence on discharge of the
replacements This letter also indicates a condition that
each striker be reinstated on April 19
Alvarado's letter of April 19, while still calling for
discharge of the replacements, declared that that was no
longer a condition and that the strikers would report for
work that day The letters reiterate the respective claims
concerning the Company's alleged condition that the
strikers return as new employees, Alvarado stating that the
Company had imposed such a condition and Markolf
denying it The latter closed his letter of April 18 "They
will be asked to give us an address at which they can be
contacted by the U S Mail so that we can advise them
promptly of available work " All having been replaced, the
Company declared its willingness to recall them as work
became available , and it appears from the testimony of the
various employee witnesses that, with the possible excep-
tion of a few, all who have wanted to have returned to
work
Leon testified that when the strikers appeared for work
on April 19, he had a paper with a "Laidlaw form" which
Markolf had given him so that he could take the names,
addresses , and telephone numbers of the strikers to inform
them if vacancies occurred He explained that , although
Alvarado instructed the strikers not to provide the
information requested , he wanted it because it has
happened that employees sometimes move without notify-
mg the store and the Company wanted to know so that it
could get in touch with them This was referred to again in
Markolf's letter of April 20, in which he declared that the
strikers were not giving the Company "the information
necessary to assure their consideration for job openings "
Whether this caused any subsequent problem or resulted in
failure to recall any of the strikers , we do not know, there
is no such claim The request for names , addresses, and
telephone numbers was neither unreasonable nor violative
Certainly an employer may seek to guard itself against a
later claim of unlawful failure to offer reinstatement
Further with respect to the discussion on April 19,
Alvarado testified that , when he appeared in front of the
store accompanied by some 30 employees , Leon came out
with papers in his hand (presumably the Laidlaw forms)
and said that they could not go in To the request for
names and addresses and Leon's statement that the
Company would let them know when jobs were available,
Alvarado replied that the Company had the names and
addresses, that they had not changed, and that the
Company could call the employees since they would
remain in front of the store Testifying that he wanted a
clear answer ("clearance" in the transcript is hereby
corrected), Alvarado testified that he asked Pantojas, the
Company's merchandise manager, and Leon whether "the
workers were being fired from their job," and allegedly
received an affirmative answer from Leon
Although no reluctance was indicated in questioning
witnesses again and again concerning various events
including some which occurred after the beginning of the
strike, not until Alvarado told us that Leon on April 19
said that the strikers had been fired did Fernandez, one of
a group of approximately 30 strikers present, testify to this
important item, that Leon had so declared (After
Alvarado admittedly had said that he would have to
consult the employees when he was told that they could
return to work, and that he did speak to them about that,
Fernandez testified that she did not remember whether she
had been told that she could return )
Alvarado continued that he asked for a letter of dismissal
so that the employees could obtain unemployment com-
pensation, that Pantojas replied that he would have to ask
for that in writing, and that Leon's reply was that the
1094 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Department of Labor had the forms which were to be filled
out, and that if he got the forms the Company would give
him the letter
According to Pantojas, Alvarado several times asked
whether the strikers had been fired but Leon did not
answer Nor did the latter reply when Alvarado declared
that the Company must give the employees a termination
letter Leon did say that the forms could be obtained at the
Unemployment Compensation Office Pantojas denied
that Leon had said that the strikers were fired According
to Leon, when Alvarado asked whether he was firing the
strikers, his reply was, "you're saying it I'm saying that we
don't have any vacancies " Leon continued that Alvarado,
after he had asked for the forms and was told that he could
get them at the Labor Department, declared, "well, then
that means that they are fired" To this Leon made no
reply
That strikers who have been replaced may be discharged
has long been the law Their right to return later under
Laidlaw5 would not appear to affect the right to declare
such discharge, whatever may thereafter develop Rein-
statement might be effected, or a subsequent failure to
recall employees might be found to be violative, the
request for names, addresses, and telephone numbers was
not It is understandable that, the employees now replaced,
the merchandise manager and the store manager, neither
of them a lawyer, might be in a quandary concerning a
reply to the question whether the employees had been
discharged The latter were not entitled to reinstatement
while their replacements were on the job or until the
Company otherwise had other positions available On the
other hand, as the totality of the evidence on this point
indicates, they had not been fired They were entitled to
reinstatement under certain conditions Whether or not
Leon could properly describe the situation, he had
admittedly told Alvarado, as we have seen, that the strikers
were still employees and, this being before they had been
replaced, that they could return
That the Company neither discharged nor unlawfully
refused reinstatement and did not prolong the strike was
further borne out by employee Soto, who testified that,
when a group of employees asked Leon for their jobs on
April 19, he told them that there was no work available for
them at that time but, saying that he would let them know
as soon as vacancies occurred, asked them to put their
names and addresses on a paper which he handed them
As clear as the evidence that this was an economic strike
are this correspondence and the oral discussion, which
indicate that any requests for reinstatement were first
conditioned on discharge of the replacements, and that the
Company did not impose unlawful conditions on reinstate-
ment or unlawfully refuse reinstatement
To hear and observe the General Counsel's witnesses
was to recognize that their testimony guttered from a hope
to assert themselves through concerted action to a belated
plaint that they had been motivated, not by violative acts
which in fact had not led them to strike, but by wage
increases which were not violative and which, as we have
seen, did not cause the strike Adopting Sturm and Drang
tactics, whether with or without prior or later encourage-
ment from the Pro-Independence Movement, the strikers
moved for economic reasons to assert themselves and to
gain recognition Only after the events involved was the
claim made that the strike had been prompted and
thereafter extended by unfair labor practices As for
requests to return, these were conditional, and unlawful
conditions were not imposed or declared by the Company
One can but wonder about a decision to use government
process under such circumstances, arousing vain hopes if
not expectation among employees, exposing an employer
to both concern and expense, and diverting Federal
resources from worthwhile accomplishment General
Counsel's representative who was called upon to present
the issues could try diligently and sincerely, but one should
not be asked to make bricks without straw Whatever
might optimistically be hoped for from witnesses whose
stories even prima facie were so thin, and possible
credibility findings with respect to their testimony, an
investigation worthy of the name must have disclosed that
the documentary evidence did not support such hopes or
possible findings
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended 6
ORDER
Respondent, Bargain Town of Ponce, Inc, Ponce, Puerto
Rico, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Unlawfully interrogating employees concerning
union meetings
(b) Promising wage increases for the purpose of inducing
employees to abandon their support of a union
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Upon application, offer to those strikers who have
not yet returned, immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions to the extent
that such positions are available, and place on a preferen-
tial hiring list those striker applicants for whom such
positions are not immediately available
(b) Notify immediately the above-named individuals, if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States
of the right to full reinstatement in the event that their or
equivalent positions are available, upon application after
discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act
(c) Post at its place of business in Ponce, Puerto Rico,
5 The Laidlaw Corporation 171 NLRB 1366 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
6 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the its findings conclusions, and order and all objections thereto shall be
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board the findings deemed waived for all purposes
conclusions and recommended Order herein shall as provided in Sec
BARGAIN TOWN OF PONCE 1095
English and Spanish copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix "7 Copies of said notice, on forms to be
provided by the Regional Director for Region 24, shall be
posted by the Respondent, after being duly signed by its
representative , immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its
employees are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Company to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, and covered by any other material
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 24, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith 8
I further recommend that the complaint be dismissed
insofar as it alleges violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
' In the event that the Boards Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
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 Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board
8 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed this provision shall be modified to read
Notify the Regional Director for Region 24 in wasting , within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith
other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any
or all such activities except to the extent that such right
may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of
employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act
WE WILL, upon application, offer to those strikers
who have not yet returned, immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equiva-
lent positions to the extent that such positions are
available, and place on a preferential hiring list those
striker applicants for whom such positions are not
immediately available
All our employees are free to become or remain, or
refrain from becoming or remaining , members of Federa-
cion Puertorriquena de Sindicatos Democraticos, or any
other labor organization , except to the extent that such
right may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment,
as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate employees
concerning union meetings
WE WILL NOT promise wage increases to employees
for the purpose of inducing them to abandon support
of a union
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise
of the right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to loin or assist Federacion Puertornquena de
Sindicatos Democraticos or any other labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
Dated By
BARGAIN TOWN OF PONCE,
INC
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
We will notify immediately the above -mentioned individu-
als, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the Umted
States, of the right to full reinstatement in the event that
their or equivalent positions are available , upon apphca-
tion after discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance
with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act
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 Board 's Office, P 0
Box UU, Pan Am Building, Seventh Floor , 255 Ponce De
Leon Avenue , Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 00919, Telephone
809-765-0404