Canterbury of Puerto Rico, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 29, 1976

225 N.L.R.B. 309 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

CANTERBURY OF PUERTO RICO, INC.
Canterbury of Puerto Rico, Inc. and Confederacion
Laborista de Puerto Rico, Petitioner . Case 24-
RC-5733
June 29, 1976
DECISION ON REVIEW
BY MEMBERS FANNING, PENELLO, AND WALTHER
On March 19, 1976, the Acting Regional Director
for Region 24 issued a Decision and Direction of
Election in the above-entitled proceeding. Thereaf-
ter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board's Rules and Regulations,
Series 8, as amended, the Employer filed a timely
request for review of the Acting Regional Director's
decision, contending that the Acting Regional Direc-
tor erred on substantial factual issues. By telegraphic
order dated April 14, 1976, the Board granted the
Employer's request for review. Thereafter, the Peti-
tioner filed a brief on review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the issue under review, including
the Petitioner's brief on review, and makes the fol-
lowing findings:
The Employer is a Puerto Rican corporation en-
gaged in the manufacture of leather belts in Maya-
guez, Puerto Rico.
The Employer argued at the hearing and in its re-
quest for review that the Acting Regional Director
erred in directing an election because the Employer
anticipated ceasing its operations in May 1976 out of
economic necessity. In support of this position, the
Employer introduced into evidence a corporate reso-
lution of November 14, 1975, directing that all manu-
facturing activities, be terminated within 6 months
and that all machinery and inventory be sold or
otherwise disposed of. The Employer also introduced
certain documents that indicate Employer has sus-
tained financial losses since 1974.
309
Despite this evidence of prospective plant closure,
the Acting Regional Director directed an election be-
cause he concluded that the Employer's anticipated
cessation of operations was an insufficient basis
upon which to bar the election. He based his conclu-
sion on the fact that the Employer had applied for
and received in 1975 an extension of its tax exemp-
tion for the 12-year period ending 1987. Further-
more, the Acting Regional Director was administra-
tively advised that the Employer's employee
complement increased from 110 to 113 from the
close of the hearing to the date of the Direction of
Election.'
In granting the Employer's request for review, the
Board requested the parties to make an offer of proof
as to matters pertaining to the alleged plant closure
which have occurred since the close of the hearing.
The Petitioner submitted a statement on review in
which it alleged that the Employer will continue its
operations, but under a different name. The Employ-
er did not respond to this allegation, nor did it prof-
fer any evidence regarding the additions to its em-
ployee complement at a time when it was supposedly
ceasing operations. Furthermore, our review of the
record has disclosed that the Employer's attorney,
when asked why the Employer applied for a 12-year
tax exemption if it contemplated ceasing operations,
responded "It is because we would like to continue
and because we are doing everything we can to make
it possible."
Under these circumstances, we agree with the Act-
ing Regional Director's conclusion that the
Employer's stated intention to cease operations is too
speculative a basis to bar an election. Accordingly,
we affirm the Regional Director, and remand this
case to him for the purpose of conducting an election
pursuant to his Decision and Direction of Election,
except that the eligibility payroll period therefor shall
be that immediately preceding the date of issuance of
this Decision of Review. [Excelsior footnote omitted
from publication.]
1 Employer complained it was denied due process by the Acting Regional
Director's reliance on this fact , which was not in the record However, as
indicated infra, our grant of review has accorded the Employer an opportu-
nity to make offers of proof bearing on these and related matters, it has
chosen not to respond We therefore find that the Employer has not been
prejudiced
225 NLRB No. 52