Crimptex, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 1, 1966

157 N.L.R.B. 263 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

CRIMPTEX, INC. 263
Crimptex , Inc. and Sindicato de Trabajadores Packinghouse,
Food & Allied Workers , District 9 of Puerto Rico, AFL-CIO.
Case No. 24-CA-2039. March 1, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 8, 1965, Trial Examiner Herbert Silberman issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, and the Respondent filed
a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was' committed.' The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision and the entire record in this case, including the
exceptions and brief, and the Respondent's answer to the Board's
notice to show cause,' and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following addition.
' In its exceptions, the Respondent alleged that it had been prejudiced by the Board's
failure to supply it with copies of certain documents referred to by the Board in its
Decision and Order Amending Certification of October 29, 1964 ( Case No 24-RC-2417;
the Board thereafter, on December 4, 1964 , denied the Respondent ' s notion for recon-
sideration ), but did not offers any facts or theory to support its claim On January 10,
1966 , the Board furnished the Respondent with copies of the documents referred to in
that decision , and simultaneously served the Respondent with a notice to show cause why
the Board should not adhere to its Decision and Order Amending Certification, and why
the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent has violated Section 8(a) (5) of the
Act should not be adopted by the Board.
On January 19, 1966 , the Respondent filed with the Board its answer to Board ' s notice
to show cause , in which , inter alia, it takes the position that: ( 1) the Board must rule on
its exceptions , ( 2) its exceptions were not limited to the allegation of prejudice by failure
to receive copies of the documents in question , ( 3) it has not been assured that the docu-
ments of which it received copies were the only documents relied on by the Board, and
(4) it was prejudiced by not having had copies of the documents prior to the Board's
reaching its decision to amend, which prevented it from adequately arguing against grant-
ing the amendment and from defending in the instant proceeding its refusal ,to accept the
Board's decision.
The Board has nowhere in the instant proceedings indicated that it construed the
Respondent 's exceptions as limited to the claim of prejudice ,set forth above. Nor has it
indicated it would not rule upon the Respondent's exceptions The documents , copies of
which were furnished the Respondent, constituted all the documents before the Board
when it made its decision , to amend the certification , other than the Respondent 's and the
-Union ' s motions to amend and clarify certification . A copy of the latter had been served
on the Respondent.
In our opinion, the Respondent has not shown any valid cause why we should not
adhere to that decision or why we should not adopt the Trial Examiner ' s finding that
157 NLRB No. 19.
264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The complaint alleges that, during the course of a speech delivered
to the Respondent's employees on December 24, 1964, Company Presi-
dent Emile Benoit made certain statements violative of Section 8(a)
(1) of the Act. In section III, D, of his Decision, the Trial Examiner
found that Benoit had not made the remarks attributed to him. We
adopt that finding. However, the Trial Examiner failed to include
in his Decision a conclusion of law to that effect and failed to dismiss
that portion of the complaint. Accordingly, we shall do so herein.
ADDITIONAL CONCLUSION or LAW
The General Counsel has failed to establish by a preponderance of
the evidence that Company President Emile Benoit in his speech to
employees on December 24, 1964, requested them to repudiate the Sin-
dicato as their bargaining agent or threatened the employees that if
they did not do so the Respondent would shut down its operations in
Puerto Rico. Hence, the allegations of the complaint herein shall be
to that extent dismissed.
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order
and dismissed the complaint insofar as it alleged violations not found
herein.]
the Respondent has violated Section 8 ( a)(5) of the Act by its refusal to bargain with
the Sindicato on the ground that it was improperly certified by the Board . We affirm
our Decision and Order Amending Certification , and adopt the Trial Examiner 's findings,
conclusions , and recommendations with regard to the 8 ( a)(5) violation.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge and amended charges filed on various dates between January 7 and
March 22, 1965, by Sindicato de Trabajadores Packinghouse , Food & Allied Workers,
District 9 of Puerto Rico , AFL-CIO ( herein called the Sindicato ), a complaint, dated
March 23, 1965, was duly issued alleging that the Respondent , Crimptex, Inc.
(herein also called the Company ), has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (3 ), and (5 ) and Section 2(6))
and (7 ) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended . The complaint, as
amended during the hearing , in substance alleges that the Respondent : ( a) since
November 10, 1964 , unlawfully has refused to bargain collectively with the Sindicato
although on October 29, 1964 , the Board had certified the Sindicato as the represent-
ative of Respondent 's employees in an appropriate unit; ( b) on December 24, 1964,
announced and thereafter granted a wage increase and made other changes in the
conditions of employment of the employees in said unit without prior notice to or
consultation with the Sindicato ; ( c) since February 12, 1965 , has refused to reinstate
Edgar Carlo to his former position upon Carlo 's unconditional request for reinstate-
ment although Carlo had participated in a strike against the Company caused by and
in protest of Respondent 's alleged unfair labor practices ; and (d ) by reason of the
aforesaid acts and other conduct set forth in the complaint , has interfered with,
restrained , and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act . The Respondent duly filed an answer to the complaint which generally
denies that it has engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices and affirmatively avers
that the certification issued to the Sindicato and its predecessor were invalid . A hear-
CRIMPTEX, INC. 265
ing in this proceeding was held before Trial Examiner Herbert Silberman in Maya-
guez and Santurce, Puerto Rico, on April 26 through 29, 1965. Thereafter, a brief
was filed on behalf of the Respondent.
Upon the, entire record in this case and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Puerto Rico corporation, maintains an office and place of business
at San German, Puerto Rico, where it is engaged' in the manufacture of yam. Its
purchases of goods and merchandise from places located outside the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico and-its sales and shipments of products to places located outside the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are each in excess of $50,000 annually. Respondent
admits, and I find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Sindicato is a voluntary association. Its members are employees as defined
in the Act who participate in matters affecting the organization. The Sindicato deals
with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, and other conditions of work. I find that the Sindicato is a labor orga-
nization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The-refusal to recognize the Sindicato
On May 8, 1964, in Case No. 24-RC-2417 the Regional Director for Region 24
certified Union Trabajadores Crimptex Inc., Independiente (herein called the Inde-
pendent), as the exclusive bargaining representative for all production and mainte-
nance employees employed by the Respondent at its plant in San German, Puerto Rico,
exclusive of professional, administrative, and office clerical employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act. The certification was issued following a represen-
tation election conducted by the Board on April 30,,1964, pursuant to-a stipulation
for certification upon consent election. On May 27, 1964, Rafael Rivera Irizarry, as
president of the Independent,' mailed a proposed collective-bargaining agreement to
the Company together with a request that the parties meet on June 3 to discuss the
subject. The Company replied the next day by letter stating that it will be necessary
for it to translate the contract, which was drafted in Spanish, into English and sug-
gesting that discussion begin on a later date. On the same day, Henry Pelletier, the
Company's plant manager, asked Rivera to furnish him with an English translation
of the proposed contract. Rivera replied that he will not consider any request from
the Company unless it is made in writing? Accordingly, on June 1 the Company
wrote to Rivera requesting an English translation of the proposed contract. When
no acknowledgement of this letter was received, the Company on June 11, 1964,
mailed a second letter to Rivera again requesting the translation.3 The Company
received no answer to these letters.
On June 14, 1964, Santos Silva Ojeda, a representative of the Sindicato, wrote to
the Company advising that "on the 14th of this month at an assembly of Union
Trabajadores Independiente De La Crimptex Inc., it was decided by secret ballot to
i Prior thereto a local affiliate of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union had
been the recognized representative of the employees in the above-described unit but
had disclaimed interest in continuing as such representative when decertification proceed-
ings were initiated by Rafael Rivera Irizarry, an employee of the Company.
"On May 29, 1964, Rivera sent the following telegram to Pelletier confirming his posi-
tion regarding communications between themselves: "Please notify by writing anything
you have to tell me concerning our proposal of collective agreement before June 2, 1964.
I will not accept any verbal information given."
a I do not credit Rivera's explanation for the delay of approximately 10 days before he
picked up the Company's June 1 letter at the post office. Rivera, I find, was an unreliable
witness. In various respects his testimony was self-contradictory. He was at times
evasive In responding to questions asked him. Furthermore, from his manner and deport-
ment on the witness stand I obtained the impression that Rivera distorted the facts about
which he testified in order to support the Sindicato's cause.
266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
affiliate to the Sindicato ..." 4 He also requested the Company to negotiate with
respect to the contract proposal previously submitted by the Independent. On June 18,
Silva and Rivera called upon Plant Manager Pelletier who informed them that the
.Company was unable to bargain with them as it did not know "who were the nego-
tiating parties." Thereupon the Company filed a motion, dated June 18, 1964, with
the Board requesting that a hearing be held to determine the facts with respect to
the alleged affiliation of the Independent with the Sindicato and for a clarification
and amendment of the certification in Case No. 24-RC-2417 if the Board should
find it appropriate .5 Similarly, on June 30, 1964, the Sindicato filed with the Board
a motion requesting the substitution of itself for the Independent in the certification
issued to the Independent. This motion was granted by a Decision and Order of
the Board dated October 29, 1964. Thereafter, on November 5, the Company filed
a motion for reconsideration alleging:
1. It had not been served with copies of the documents to which the Board
referred in its Decision and Order.6
2. The Board erred in its decision by stating that "the employer is willing to
recognize Sindicato as the collective-bargaining agent of its employees upon
appropriate amendment of the certification by the Board" because the employer
had never taken such position.
3. The Board erred in its finding that- the Sindicato's, motion did not raise a
question concerning representation.
Accordingly, Respondent requested the Board to reconsider its Decision and Order
amending certification of representative and to direct a hearing on the issues.
Respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied on December 4, 1964.
On November 8, 1964, after the Board had issued its Decision and Order amend-
ing certification of representative, the Sindicato again wrote to the Company request-
ing'negotiations "on the contract proposal that the Independent Union submitted to
you in past months." The Company replied by letter dated November 10, 1964,
which in effect constituted a rejection of the Sindicato's request to engage in collective-
bargaining negotiations. At all times since said date the Company has persisted in
its refusal to recognize and to bargain with the Sindicato as the representative of its
employees. Respondent defends its conduct on the ground that the certification of
the Sindicato was invalid for the following reasons:
1. Irregularities in the Board's proceedings in connection with the amendment of
the certification in Case No. 24-RC-2417 because documents relied on by the Board
were never served on the Company thereby denying the Company any opportunity
to present evidence in opposition and because of the uncertainty of what documents
were before the Board when it rendered its Decision of October 29, 1964.7
2. The Independent was not a labor organization within the meaning of the Act
or, in the alternative, even if it was a labor organization it never intended to function
as such. Therefore, the certification of the Independent was void ab initio and the
amendment substituting the Sindicato as the certified labor organization is likewise
void.
4 In support of its position that the Independent continued in existence after June 14,
1964, the Company introduced in evidence a letter dated July 11, 1964, concerning the
results of an arbitration proceeding, which was signed "Rafael Rivera Irizarry Union's
President ." The Company argues that as of that date Rivera could only have been
referring to himself as president of the Independent because he was not an officer of the
Sindicato and, according to Sindicato representative Santos Silva Ojeda, -the designation
of the Company's employee as Local 972 of the Sindicato was not made before October 1964
In addition, plant manager Henry Pelletier testified that on June 20, 1964, Rivera and
Laboy, secretary of the Independent, came to his offices and inquired if he was willing to
negotiate with the Independent. This testimony was controveited by Rivera
5 The Board has not directly ruled on the Company's motion although the Board's
Decision with respect to the Sindicato's companion motion disposes of the issue raised by
the Company in its motion
6In Its Decision the Board states that it received from the officers of the Independent
,confirmation that "at a meeting of the Independent on June 14, the employees voted by
secret ballot to affiliate with Sindicato; of a possible 51 eligible voters, 45 voted for the
affiliation and 2 cast void ballots" and a request that the Independent's certification be
transferred to the Sindicato. However, these documents do not appear in the files of the
Board
7 See S. D. Warren Company v. N.L.R B., 342 F. 2d 814 (C.A 1)
CRIMPTEX, INC. 267
3. The Board erred in refusing to direct a hearing with respect to the issues raised
by the Sindicato's motion and Respondent's motions.
4. The Sindicato's motion of June 30, 1964, raised,a question concerning repre-
sentation which can only be determined by an election.
The facts which Respondent relies on to support its attack upon the Sindicato's
certification were generally known to it or could have been made the subject of
formal inquiry by it prior to the date on which it filed its motion for reconsideration.
Thus, Respondent knew, and in its motion for reconsideration stated, that it had not
been served with the documents referred to by the Board in its Decision and Order
Amending Certification of Representative. The facts to which Respondent refers to
demonstrate that the Independent was not a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act (absence of any formal organization or membership rolls, no dealings
with any employer concerning grievances, wages, hours or conditions of work and
no evidence that the Independent was organized for the purpose of representing
employees), if not generally known to Respondent when the petition in Case No.
24-RC-2417 was filed, could have been inquired into at a hearing in that matter
had the Company requested such hearing instead of entering into a stipulation for
certification upon consent election. The evidence to which Respondent points as
proof that the Independent never intended to function as a labor organization prin-
cipally concerns transactions between the Company and the Independent which took
place before June 14, 1964, and therefore was known to the Company prior to the
date on which the Respondent filed its motion for reconsiderations I find, there-
fore, that no material facts were introduced into the record of this proceeding which
constitute newly discovered evidence of such nature as would entitle Respondent to
relitigate questions which were raised or might have been raised in the underlying
representation proceedings in Case No. 24-RC-2417. In these circumstances, I am
bound.by the Board's actions in said representation proceedings. Accordingly, I find
that the Respondent has violated Section 8(a) (5) of the Act by its refusal to bargain.
collectively with the Sindicato since November 10, 1964, and thereby also has inter-
fered with and restrained employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act in violation of 8 (a) (1) thereof 9
B. The unilateral actions
On December 24, 1964, Emile Benoit, Respondent's president, announced to the
employees that the Company was putting into effect, and subsequently did put into,
effect, certain wage increases and other changes in their conditions of employment.
This was done without prior notice to the Sindicato and without affording the Sindi-
cato an opportunity to bargain collectively about the matter. Such unilateral action,
which denied to the Sindicato effective participation in an important area of the bar-
gaining relationship, tends to subvert the organization's position as the representative
of the employees and constitutes a breach on the part of Respondent of its statutory
duty to bargain collectively with the Sindicato. Respondent thereby engaged in a,
further violation of Section 8(a) (1) and (5) of the Act.
C. The discrimination against Edgar Carlo
About January 7, 1965, Respondent's employees began a strike which I find was,
caused by and was in protest of Respondent's refusal to recognize and deal with the
Sindicato and Respondent's unilateral changes in its employees' conditions of work.
On December 24, 1964, Company President Benoit advised the employees that in
addition to a general wage increase of 10 cents an hour, the crimpers will receive a-
"Certain fact ( various meetings between Rivera and Silva suggesting that early in
May 1964 Rivera may have been thinking about an affiliation of the Independent with the
Sindicato) tending to buttress Respondent's argument that the Independent never intended
to function as a labor organization possibly came to Respondent's attention for the first
time 'through testimony adduced at the instant hearing However, these facts merely
supplemented information of which Respondent had knowledge prior to November 1964.-
Furthermore, Respondent did not make the argument in its motions to the Board in the
iepresentation proceedings that the Independent was not and never intended to function,
as a labor organization . It is in this proceeding that the Respondent for the first time
seeks to raise such issue.
- BAs I find no merit to Respondent's attack upon the certification of the Sindicato, it
is unnecessary to consider General Counsel 's alternative argument that a valid designation-
of the Sindicato was made on December 24, 1964, by a show of hands on the part of
the employees in the bargaining unit in the presence of representatives of, the. Company..
268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
further increase of 16 cents per hour, but the crimpers will be required to run 90 ends
per man instead of 60 ends. When the employees returned to work on January 7,
1965, following the Christmas holiday, the crimpers again were told that they will be
required to run 90 ends. The crimpers refused to work under these conditions and
their refusal precipitated a strike which continued until about February 5, 1965. As
the imposition by Respondent of such change in conditions of work without notice
to the Sindicato, the certified representative of the employees, constituted a violation
of the Company's collective-bargaining obligations, the ensuing strike was an unfair
labor practice strike.
On February 12, 1965, Edgar Carlo, one of the strikers made an unconditional
application .for reinstatement and was denied reinstatement by Respondent on the
ground that he had engaged in picket line misconduct. Specifically, Respondent con-
tends that about 8:30 p.m. on the night of January 13, 1965, Carlo together with
other strikers stopped Plant Manager Henry Pelletier as he was driving into the plant,
began to shake his pickup truck in a dangerous manner and otherwise generally
threatened his safety. Both Pelletier and the Assistant Plant Manager Enrique Enri-
quez testified to Carlo's participation in the alleged incident. On the other hand,
Carlo testified that he was not at the plant at the time in question and in fact had
not been at the plant since 6 p.m. that night. In this respect Carlo's testimony was
corroborated by Rivera, Silva, and also by Police Lieutenant Victor M. Vargas.
According to Pelletier's testimony, as elicited on his cross-examination, Carlo was
in front of the vehicle in which Pelletier was sitting at the time Lieutenant Vargas
arrived at the scene. Vargas, on the other hand, testified that Carlo was not present
when he arrived at the scene of the disturbance. As Lieutenant Vargas has no inter-
est in this proceeding and generally impressed me as being a reliable witness, I credit
his testimony and find that Carlo did not participate in the alleged misconduct. In
these circumstances, Respondent's refusal to reinstate Carlo on February 12, 1965,
constituted a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act. Rubin Bros. Foot-
wear, Inc., and Rubin Brothers Footwear, Inc., 99 NLRB 610.
D. Other acts of interference
In addition to the matters discussed above, General Counsel contends that Com-
pany President Emile Benoit in his speech to the employees on December 24, 1964,
requested them to repudiate the Sindicato as their bargaining agent and threatened
the employees that if they do not do so Respondent will shut down its operation in
Puerto Rico. There is considerable conflict among the witnesses concerning the
content of Benoit's speech. I credit Luz Pelletier's testimony as to what was said by
Benoit on the occasion in question and find that Benoit did not make the offending
remarks attributed to him by witnesses for General Counsel.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with its operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend
to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, I shall
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designated to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent unlawfully refused to bargain collectively with
the Sindicato, I shall recommend that the Respondent be ordered to bargain collec-
tively with that labor organization, upon request, in respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other conditions of employment of the employees in the
unit described above and, if an understanding is reached, to embody such understand-
ing in a signed agreement.
Having found that the strike under consideration was an unfair labor strike, it
follows that Edgar Carlo, who was one of the striking employees, was entitled to
reinstatement to his former job on February 12, 1965, when his unconditional offer
to return to work was made even though Respondent, during the strike, may have
hired a replacement for him.10 Accordingly, I shall recommend that the Respondent
"Butcher Boy Refrigerator Door Company, 127 NLRB 1360, 1375-1376, enfd. 290 F.
2d 22 (C.A. 7).
CRIMPTEX, INC. 269
offer Edgar Carlo immediate and full reinstatement to his former or to a substantially
equivalent position , without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges,
dismissing if necessary any person hired after January 7, 1965 , as his replacement,
and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of
Respondent 's unlawful discrimination against him , by payment to him of a sum of
money equal to that which he normally would have earned from February 12, 1965,
to the date of Respondent 's offer of reinstatement , less his net earnings during such
period. The backpay provided for herein shall be computed on the basis of calendar
quarters, in accordance with the method prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289 . Interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum shall be added to such
net backpay and shall be computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heat-
ing Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this
-case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 ( a)(5) of the Act by refusing , since on or about November 10,
1965, to bargain collectively with the Sindicato as the exclusive representative of the
employees in the following appropriate unit:
All production and maintenance employees employed by the Respondent at its
plant in San German , Puerto Rico. exclusive of professional , administrative , and office
clerical employees , guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
2. By announcing to the employees in the aforesaid unit on December 24, 1964,
and thereafter putting into effect , wage increases and other changes in their condi-
tions of employment without first advising the Sindicato of its intention to make such
changes and affording the Sindicato an opportunity to bargain about them , Respond-
ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 ( a) (5) of the Act.
3. By refusing , on and since February 12, 1965, to reinstate Edgar Carlo to his
former position upon Carlo's unconditional application for reinstatement following
the termination of a strike caused and prolonged by Respondent 's unfair labor prac-
tices, Respondent discriminated against him in regard to his hire and tenure of
employment to discourage membership in the Sindicato and thereby has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.
4. By the foregoing conduct, Respondent has interfered with , restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law , and the entire record
in the case , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, I recommend that Respondent, Crimptex, Inc., its officers, agents , succes-
sors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Sindicato de Trabajadores Packinghouse,
Food & Allied Workers, District 9 of Puerto Rico, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of its employees in the following appropriate
unit :
All production and maintenance employees employed by Crimptex, Inc., at its plant
in San German , Puerto Rico, exclusive of professional, administrative , and office
clerical employees , guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Promising , making, or effecting any changes in the wages , hours , or other
terms or conditions of employment of employees in the unit described above without
first giving notice to the statutory representative , if any, of such employees and afford-
ing such representative an opportunity to engage in collective bargaining with respect
to any such proposed change.
(c) Discouraging membership in the Sindicato , or any other labor organization,
by refusing to reinstate or otherwise discriminating against any of its employees
because of their concerted or union activities.
270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
any labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which is deemed necessary to effectuate
the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively concerning rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment with Sindicato de Trabajadores
Packinghouse, Food & Allied Workers, District 9 of Puerto Rico, AFL-CIO, as the
exclusive representative of all the employees in the appropriate unit described above,
and, if an agreement is reached, embody such agreement in a signed contract.
(b) Offer to Edgar Carlo immediate and full reinstatement to his former or to a
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges, and make him whole in the manner set forth in the section of this
Decision entitled "The Remedy" for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by
reason of Respondent's discrimination against him.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records relevant to a determina-
tion of the amount of backpay due to said employee.
(d) Notify Edgar Carlo if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of his right to full reinstatement upon application, in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948,
after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(e) Post at its place of business in San German, Puerto Rico, copies in Spanish
and in English of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 11 Copies of such notice
in Spanish and in English, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 24
of the Board, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the
Respondent, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken.by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 24, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.12
n In the event that this Recommended Order Is adopted by the Board, the words, "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by
a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall
be modified'to read "Notify said Regional Director, in writing within 10 days froni the
date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the' Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with Sindicato de Trabajadores
Packinghouse, Food & Allied Workers, District 9 of Puerto Rico, AFL-CIO,
as the exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees in the bargaining
unit described below concerning rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and
other conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody
such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees employed at our plant in
San German, Puerto Rico, exclusive of professional, administrative, and
office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT, promise or make any changes in rates of pay, wages, hours of
work, or other terms or conditions of employment of our employees in the
K. B. & J. YOUNG'S SUPER MARKETS, INC. 271
above described bargaining unit without first giving notice to the representative
of such employees.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Sindicato de Trabajadores Packing-
house, Food & Allied Workers, District 9 of Puerto Rico , AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization, by refusing to reinstate or by otherwise discriminating
against any of our employees because they had engaged in a lawful strike or
because of their union or concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with , restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor
organizations , to join or assist the above -named union or any other labor orga-
nization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities.
WE WILL offer to Edgar Carlo immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or to a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or
other rights previously enjoyed , and make him whole for any loss of earnings
suffered as a result of the discrimination against him.
CRIMPTEX, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify Edgar Carlo , if presently serving in the Armed Forces of
the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance
with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training Service Act of
1948, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office , P.O. Box
11007, Fernandez Juncos Station, Santurce , Puerto Rico , Telephone No. 724-7171.
K. B. & J. Young 's Super Markets, Inc. and Imogene Brewton,
Butchers Union Local 193, AFL-CIO , and Norma Newton and
Jack Baldwin. Cases Nos. 31-CA-24 (formerly 21-CA-6169),
31-CA-26-1 (formerly 21-CA-6202-1), and 31-CA-26-2 (for-
merly 21-CA-6202-2). March 1, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 15, 1965, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom, and
take certain affirmative action as set forth in the attached Trial Exam-
iner's Decision . Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Coun-
sel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner 's Decision and supporting
briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
157 NLRB No. 17.