Dorado Beach Hotel

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 20, 1963

144 N.L.R.B. 712 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and that there is no interchange or transfer of employees between
the two stores. Accordingly, and in view of the absence of a bargain-
ing history for the snackbar employees at either store and the fact
that no labor organization seeks to represent such employees on a
broader basis, we find that a unit of snackbar employees confined to the
Encino store is appropriate herein.14
In view of the foregoing, we find that the following employees
constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
All regular full-time and part-time snackbar employees at the Em-
ployer's store located at 15821 Ventura Boulevard, Encino, California,
including the fry cook '15 but excluding all other employees, office
clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
14 Sav-On Drugs, Inc, 138 NLRB 1032, 1034-1035.
1s The record shows that from June 1962, when the Encino store opened , until April
1963 , the snackbar was supervised by a salaried snackbar manages who was responsible
to the store manager, had sole responsibility for the operations of the snackbar , and had
the authority to hire and fire snackbar employees. Since April 1963 some of the duties
of the snackbar manager , with respect to purchases of food and supplies , have been
assumed by the fry cook who is hourly paid. However , the fry cook's pay has not been
increased ; he has not assumed the title of manager , nor has he been given or exercised
the authority to hire and fire employees , or to effectively recommend such action. In
view thereof , we find the fry cook is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, and
include him in the unit.
Dorado Beach Hotel and Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen
& Helpers, Local 901, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Petitioner.
Case No. 24-RC-1726. September 20, 1963
DECISION ON REVIEW
On June 22, 1962, the Regional Director for the Twenty-fourth Re-
gion issued his Fourth Supplemental Decision and Certification of
Representatives in the above-entitled proceeding in which he found
no merit in the objections raised by the Independiente 1 to the conduct
of the runoff election held on June 1, 1962. Accordingly, he certified
Local 610 2 as the bargaining representative of the employees in the
unit of the Employer's hotel service and maintenance employees agreed
1 Union de Trabajadores do la Industries Gastronomica de Puerto Rico, Independiente,
an Intervenor.
2 Union de Trabajadores de ]a Industria Gastronomica de Puerto Rico, Local 610, Hotel
and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, AFL -CIO, an Intervenor.
A tally of ballots, served on each of the parties , revealed that, of 471 eligible voters,
221 cast valid ballots for Local 610 , 89 for Independlente , and the ballots of 13 voters
were challenged . There were nine void ballots.
144 NLRB No. 72.
DORADO BEACH HOTEL 713
upon by the parties and found appropriate in the original Decision
and Direction of Election issued August 31, 1961. Thereafter, the
Independiente, in accord with Section 102.67 and 102.69 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, filed with the Board a
timely request for review of the Regional Director's disposition of the
objections. The Board, having duly considered the matter, on Au-
gust 28, 1962, issued an order granting request for review and directing
hearing, in which the Hearing Officer designated by the Regional Di-
rector was authorized and directed to prepare a report containing
resolutions of credibility, findings of fact, and recommendations as to
the disposition of the issues raised by the objections. The certification
of representatives was thereby ordered suspended pending final re-
solution by the Board of the questions presented by the objections.
Pursuant thereto, a hearing was held from October 2 to 12, 1962, be-
fore Trial Examiner Thomas A. Ricci, acting as Hearing Officer.
Thereafter, on November 27, 1962, the Hearing Officer issued his
Report and Recommendations on Objections to Election, recommend-
ing that the election be set aside, that the certification of Local 610 be
canceled, and that Local 610 not be accorded a place on the ballot
in a new election. Timely exceptions to these findings and recom-
mendations were filed jointly by Local 610 and its International, to-
gether with a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by Trial Examiner Ricci
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the entire
record in this case with respect to the issues under review, together
with the Regional Director's determinations, the Hearing Officer's re-
port, which is attached hereto, and the exceptions and brief, and makes
the following findings :
The facts detailed in Trial Examiner Ricci's report are a substan-
tially accurate and complete reflection of the record evidence.3 On
the basis of this evidence the Hearing Officer concluded that Local
610 ceased to exist separately as a labor organization within the mean-
ing of the Act when former Teamsters Organizer Ramos was named
as the new trustee of Local 610 . He concluded that Local 610 thereby
became a segment of and an activity for the Petitioner, which had
been rejected previously by the employees and was not on the ballot in
the runoff election. The Hearing Officer accordingly found that the
8 As appears therein , a special agreement was entered into between Restaurant Inter-
national President Miller and Teamsters International President I3offa known as the
Miller-Iloifa pact pursuant to which former Teamsters Organizer Ramos was appointed
trustee to handle the affairs of Local 610, and was assisted therein by the Petitioner In
furtherance of this arrangement , Teamsters International Representative Chavez actively
participated in the election campaign herein, authoring or directing the preparation of
many campaign leaflets in the name of Local 610, having them printed in the Teamsters
printing shop , and arranging their distribution by organizers of either or both Local 610
and the Petitioner , and some without the prior knowledge or approval of Ramos.
714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
election campaign propaganda, which presented Local 610 as a regular
affiliate of an AFL-CIO International , contrary to the Miller-Hoffa
pact and its effect as he found it, constituted misstatements of mate-
rial facts which were within the special knowledge of the party
originating the leaflets, and that such conduct warranted setting aside
the election.
Because the question of whether an organization qualifies under the
Act as a labor organization is by its nature jurisdictional,4 we reject
the contention that Trial Examiner Ricci exceeded his authority by
passing upon the status of Local 610 under the statute. However, we
do not agree with the Hearing Officer that the Miller-Hoffa pact or its
effectuation is determinative of the issue.' Although, as a result of
the appointment of Trustee Ramos, there occurred a considerable up-
heaval in the Local,' and for a short period Local 610 experienced a
temporary inability to function,' it is not established that employees
ceased to participate in Local 610,6 and the record demonstrates that
Local 610, under Ramos, continued to assert, among other claims, its
bargaining rights under existing contracts executed by Local 610
through previous trustees. We conclude, therefore, that Local 610
continued to exist as a labor organization within the meaning of the
Act .9
However, the question remains whether, as found, by the Hearing
Officer, failure by Local 610 to disclose the content and effect of the
Miller-Hoffa pact was the type of misrepresentation which constitutes
fraud and trickery and so impairs the freedom of choice of employees
as to warrant setting aside an election. It is clear that the subject
matter of the alleged misrepresentation was the very thing concerning
which charges and countercharges were made and which led to the
disaffiliation action. It was also under extensive investigation by the
Puerto Rico Senate, and all these events and, contentions were well
* See Jack T. Cox, et at. v. Frank W. McCulloch, at at. (Calhoun Drywall Co ), 315
F. 2d 48 (CAD C.).
5 Cf N L R B. v. Cabot Carbon Co., 360 U.S. 203 . Violation of a policy of the AFL-CIO
executive council is an internal union matter which does not itself deprive a union of its
existing status as a labor organization . Nor is that status determined by the appointment
of a trustee , even if the trusteeship be presumed invalid under Section 304 (c) of Title III
of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. See Terminal System , Inc., 127
NLRB 979, 980; Jot Transportation Corp , at al , 128 NLRB 780, 782.
6 We agree with the conclusion of the Trial Examiner , but for the reasons stated in
Hershey Chocolate Corporation , 121 NLRB 901, that the facts do net establish a schism
under the Board's decisions. We disagree, however, with his conclusion that the facts
establish successorship in the Independiente
I It is well established that "mere temporary inability to function does not constitute
defunctness , nor is the loss of all members in the unit the equivalent of defunctness if
the representative otherwise continues in existence and is willing and able to represent the
employees . . " Hershey Chocolate Corporation, supra , at 911-912 We therefore also
reject the Trial Examiner 's conclusion that Local 610 was defunct
8 The fact that all officers , organizers , and stewards joined the disaffiliation movement
does not establish an absence of continued employee membership and participation in
Local 610
0 See Alto Plastic Manufacturing Corporation, 136 NLRB 850.
DORADO BEACH HOTEL 715
publicized throughout the area. Accordingly, we do not believe that
the total impact of the campaign upon employees was such as to impair
unduly their freedom of choice, but, rather, we find that this is the
type of propaganda which the Board leaves to the good sense of the
voters to evaluate.10
In view of the foregoing, we find, upon review and in agreement
with the Regional Director as set forth in his Fourth Supplemental
Decision and Certification of Representatives, that the objections do
not raise any substantial or material issues with respect to the conduct
of the election of June 1, 1961. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the certification of representatives issued
by the Regional Director on June 22, 1962, and suspended by the
Board's Order granting review of that decision, be, and it hereby is,
reinstated effective this date.
MEMBER JENKINS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision on Review.
10 Mason Can Company, 115 NLRB 1408; Hollywood Ceramics Co, 140 NLRB 221,
TRIAL EXAMINER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ON OBJECTIONS TO ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a representation proceeding in which an election was held on June 1, 1962
Union de Trabajadores de la Industria Gastronomica de Puerto Rico, herein called
the Independiente, one of the two organizations appearing on the ballot, filed objec-
tions to conduct allegedly affecting the results. On investigation, the Regional Direc-
tor found no merit in the objections; the Independiente appealed to the Board for
reversal of this ruling. By Order dated August 28, 1962, the Board ordered a bearing
"on the issues raised by all objections, especially, but not limited to, objection 1
and 3."
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was conducted by Trial Examiner Thomas A. Ricci
in Santurce, Puerto Rico, from October 2 to 12, 1962. Dorado Beach Hotel, here
called the Company, appeared by its attorney, and the Board's Regional Office par-
ticipated through Government counsel. Mr. Jose Torres Ortiz participated in the
hearing as legal representative of Union de Trabajadores de la Industria Gastrono-
mica de Puerto Rico, Local 610, AFL-CIO. herein called Local 610, and as legal
representative for the Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International
Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the AFL-CIO International. All parties were af-
forded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. After the close of the hearing, a brief
was received from the Company.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
A. The status of the proceeding
This representation proceeding started when Teamsters, Chauffeurs. Warehouse-
men & Helpers, Local 901, IBTCW & H of America, herein called the Teamsters, or
Teamsters Local 901, filed its petition seeking to represent the employees of the
Dorado Hotel, one of the large resort establishments in Puerto Rico in 1961. At that
time, Local 610, affiliated with the AFL-CIO, had long been the bargaining agent,
and it intervened to participate in the election. By direction of the Regional Direc-
tor, a first balloting took place on August 31, 1961; the results were inconclusive
and a runoff election took place on November 22, in which Teamsters Local 901
received a majority of the votes cast. Claiming that the Teamsters had improperly
interfered with the election, Local 610 filed objections aimed at setting aside the
results. At a scheduled hearing of the objections, the parties agreed instead to hold
a new election on April 6, 1962.
716 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
However, on March 30, 1962, before the third election could take place, the
Independiente moved to intervene in the proceeding and requested a place on the
ballot in any subsequent election. The Regional Director granted the motion and
a third election was held on May 4, 1962.
In this election Teamsters Local 901 received 45 votes, Local 610 received 95,
and the Independiente 120; there were 33 void ballots and 13 challenges. A runoff
election was required.
The fourth election was conducted on June 1, in which 221 votes were cast for
Local 610 and 68 for the Independiente; there were 9 void ballots and 13 challenges.
The objections to election which are under consideration at this stage of the pro-
ceeding put in question the validity of this balloting.'
B. The theory of the objections
As phrased, the objections are separated into five ostensibly diverse grounds.
There is one overlapping and pervasive allegation, however, running through a num-
ber of the enumerated paragraphs of the document. This is a basic assertion that
the campaign propaganda of "Local 610 and/or the petitioner" worked a "fraud"
and "trickery" upon the employees, and thereby prevented them from voicing a
consciously intelligent and untrammeled choice as to bargaining agents. A restate-
ment of this essential complaint appears in objection No. 3, which charges that the
petitioner-Teamsters Local 901-which was not a participant in the June 1 election
at all, circulated "slanderous leaflets . . . fraudulently identified as Local 610
propaganda."
There are additional detailed assertions of improper activities by representatives
of Local 610 and of Teamsters Local 901, all of them also said to have improperly
interfered with the election. The record in its entirety shows clearly, however, that
the essential burden of the objections is the deception, if such it was, played upon
the employees by Teamsters Local 901 in appealing for their votes while masquer-
ading as the long-established Local of a regularly constituted AFL-CIO International
Union. And the Board's Order directing the hearing indicated that a comprehensive
investigation into this possibility was its major concern, because it emphasized par-
ticularly an interest in objections Nos. 1 and 3. Thus, the Independiente's position
rests basically upon the nature and the significance of the election campaign con-
ducted in the name of Local 610 during the month of May 1962, a fundamental
matter that can best be understood in the light of the origin and development of
both these organizations. A word of history is therefore pertinent here.
C. The history of hotel and restaurant employee organization in Puerto Rico
In 1928 there came into existence in Puerto Rico a labor organization represent-
ing hotel and restaurant employees throughout the island. It was called Union de
Trabajadores de la Industria Gastronomica de Puerto Rico. In December 1957 this
union affiliated with Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International
Union, AFL-CIO, as its Local 610; it was thereafter called Local 610.
For reasons that do not appear on this record there came a time in about 1960
when the affairs of Local 610 were placed, by International President Miller, under
control of a trustee. Between that time and March 1962, when the events which
gave rise to this case occurred, there were a succession of trustees sent by the
International president to Puerto Rico. The story as detailed in this record starts
with February 1961, when the trustee was a Mr. Loew; in that month an executive
board was elected by the union members, and one Thomas Sola was elected by the
members to be president of that board. The following month Miller sent John
Dennis to Puerto Rico to serve as acting secretary-treasurer, under the stewardship
of Mr. Loew.
In June 1961, Manuel Parron arrived from the States as trustee to replace Loew.
He set aside the election of officers and removed Sola as president. Apparently the
membership was satisfied with Loew for there resulted a general protest against
Parron, the employees threatening disaffiliation from the AFL-CIO if Parron re-
mained. He was, however, successful in persuading the employees to permit him
to remain; he announced he would leave the executive board as it was; Dennis re-
mained as acting secretary-treasurer.
'On concluding that the objections have no merit, the Regional Director i,sued a cer-
tiflcation of representatives in favor of Local 610. In its Order directing a hearing on the
objections, the Board "suspended" the certificate pending final resolution of the issues
raised.
DORADO BEACH HOTEL 717
Parron left Puerto Rico and returned to the States on November 30, 1961. A few
days later Dennis distributed a leaflet among the members in which he identified
himself as "head organizer" and "trustee." Again there occurred what one of the
witnesses described as a "real uprising" by union members opposed to the idea of
Dennis becoming trustee. In consequence a committee of five members was desig-
nated to travel to Miami and argue the general membership dissatisfaction to Inter-
national President Miller.
They met with him on December 8, 1961, and threatened that unless Dennis were
removed the Puerto Rico Local would disaffiliate. Parron never returned to
Puerto Rico, but, as a temporary stopgap to satisfy the demands of the Local 610
group, Miller sent Al Gonzalez, the president of the Miami Local of the Inter-
national, to take over the affairs of Local 610. With Gonzalez to Puerto Rico
went Marcel Kenney, first International vice president, to see that matters ran
smoothly. Dennis remained as a dummy.
In the course of the conference at Miami, President Miller found occasion to
say to the employee committee: "Not to attack too much the Teamsters because
maybe they would reach an agreement, in which they would be out of our juris-
diction and they wouldn't have any relations whatsoever with us."
On January 5, 1962, Miller appointed still another trustee, Joel Frias, who went
to Puerto Rico to take over and relieve Gonzalez. Two months later, on March 9,
1962, Frias told Maldonado, the office manager, that he had been ordered to return
to the States and that Maldonado should "keep in contact with the shop stewards of
Local 610 because they were the ones who could save the Union if something should
happen." The next day, Frias distributed to the employees gathered in the office
copies of a letter from Miller announcing that there would soon be a new trustee.
The last trustee, Leopoldo Ramos Ducos, called Ramos, arrived on March 13 in
the circumstances described below. For 3 years he had been a paid organizer
for Teamster Local 901 in Puerto Rico, under Teamsters International Representa-
tive Chavez. It was on this occasion, and as a direct result of his arrival, that the
Independiente came into being.
D. The Miller-Hoffa pact
By the year 1961 Teamsters Local 901, the only Teamsters Local on the Island
of Puerto Rico, was carrying on an intensive organizational campaign among hotel
and restaurant workers in direct competition with Local 610. Its activities spread
throughout the industry; indeed, the petition in this very proceeding (Case No.
24-RC-1726) was filed by Teamsters Local 901 in an effort to replace Local 610
as majority representative at the Dorado Hotel. On about March 1, 1962 (the
precise date is neither clear on the record nor of any material importance), an
agreement was made between the respective presidents of the two International
Unions. It came to be called the "pact," or the "Miller-Hoffa agreement." The
various witnesses who had occasion to refer to it at the hearing agreed that the
pact was made and that it was a document of a few pages. Understandably the
original-the physical document bearing the handwritten signatures of the two
presidents-was not and could not be made available for receipt into evidence
in this proceeding.
The terms of that agreement have a direct bearing upon the merits of a number
of litigated proceedings now pending in the Board's Regional Office in Puerto Rico.
Counsel for the Independiente served subpenas duces tecuni upon Ramos, the new
trustee in charge of Local 610 pursuant to the very agreement, and upon Frank
Chavez, the Teamsters International Representative in Puerto Rico and the highest
officer of that union on the island, in an effort to compel them to produce at least
a reliable copy of the Miller-Hoffa pact. Each of these men professed inability
to do so. Counselor Torres appeared at the hearing as attorney for both Local
610 and the Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union,
AFL-CIO. As Trial Examiner, I asked him several times to make an effort to
communicate directly with his client , Mr. Miller, the president of the AFL-CIO
International, and to request a copy of the pact Miller had signed. He repeatedly
evaded any direct reply. And Mr. Marcel Kenney, the International vice president
of the AFL-CIO, who appeared as a witness, and who was sent to Puerto Rico at
the time of the events ostensibly to look after implementation of the agreement,
blandly said he had never seen the original and had read "only a part" of a copy
of the document.
Two purported copies of the pact were received in evidence, Exhibit No. 22 of
the Independiente, and Exhibit No. 4 of the Trial Examiner; they are identical.
Ramos testified that a few months before the hearing he had delivered to an in-
vestigating committee of the Puerto Rican Senate a copy of the agreement, one
718 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
which he had received from International Representative Chavez. All the parties
stipulated that Trial Examiner's Exhibit No. 4 is an authentic copy of the copy [sic]
of the agreement which Ramos placed in the hands of the Puerto Rico Senate Com-
mittee. As to Exhibit No. 22 of the Independiente, Ramos started by agreeing
that it is "an absolutely correct copy of the pact that was made between the two
International Unions." He said he knew this to be true because he had read
the document that had been in his hand. As his testimony continued he began
to say he was not sure about the copy; he then added that "in substance" the
copy received in evidence did represent the pact as he recalled it.
I am of the opinion that, considering the record as a whole, the copies of the
pact received in evidence may be taken as precisely reflecting the original agreement.
There can be no question but that those persons in the hearing room who could
most reasonably be expected to be familiar with the terms of the agreement and
whose respective positions made them especially chargeable with knowledge of its
contents, were carrying out a concerted and deliberate strategy to keep the terms
of the agreement from seeing the light of day, to confuse this Board on what is
perhaps the most critical element of this entire case, and to mislead both their oppo-
nents and the entire group of employees involved. Ramos was made autocratic
boss of Local 610, received a copy of the pact from his superior, Chavez, and yet
professed inability to remember its terms. Chavez started his testimony by saying,
"I forgot what is in the agreement." He is the very official of the Teamsters Inter-
national charged with carrying out the arrangement. He even tesifited: "We are
complying very simply with the pact that was signed by presidents of two interna-
tional unions." Yet he continued to feign ignorance of its terms.
International Vice President Kenney had been in Puerto Rico a number of times
on the problem of Local 610; he was said to have cooperated with Ramos in the
trustee arrangement pursuant to the agreement. Yet he said under oath: "I have
never seen a signed copy of the agreement in any form . . . I've seen a part of
a copy of the agreement." He made no effort to explain how a two-page document
could possibly come to be cut into segments for distribution and how he could
look at the whole and see only part. And finally, Torres, the trustee's lawyer, asked
by the Trial Examiner to help obtain evidence of the contents of the agreement,
answered on the record:
Mr. TORRES: I do know that there was one copy in Puerto Rico of that docu-
ment. I saw the document, I didn't read it all. I didn't want to read it.
TRIAL EXAMINER: Why?
Mr. TORRES: Because when you don't read something, you are not involved
in it-I cannot testify to its contents and so forth.
In his own words Attorney Torres represents the Teamsters in all kinds of litiga-
tion, including Labor Board matters. Chavez, who as head man of the Teamsters
in Puerto Rico is therefore necessarily Torres' client, testified 2 days after his lawyer
announced he does not read important documents that come into his hands. As
Chavez was being pressed by counsel for the Independiente for details of the pact,
Torres urged a continuing series of objections on the grounds that the best evidence
would be a copy of the pact!
In view of what I deem a deliberate refusal by all those persons having knowledge
of the pact and whose interest could be hurt or helped by producing either the
original agreement or an openly admitted true copy of it, the secondary character
of the exhibits received in evidence does not make them any the less proof of the
contents of the agreement. In any event, there are admissions by Ramos and Chavez
from the witness stand, partial but nevertheless revealing, as to the substantive
terms of the agreement, which I believe in the total picture of the record suffice in
themselves to establish the agreement, or, in the very least, to furnish adequate
corroborating proof of the reliability of the copy received as an exhibit.
After considerable evasion and with marked reluctance Ramos finally came forth
with the following phrases as to the contents of the agreement: "About that the
Teamsters people will withdraw their interest in the hotel industry . . . the other
thing is that I was named trustee . . . for the Local 610 . . . and the agreement
is it would be in effect for 5 years, and the same would be declared void if I
resigned. That's all I can remember" In like fashion Chavez. from the witness
stand, evaded all questions as to his knowledge of the terms of the agreement, but
finally came forth with the following: "I remember that we were not supposed to
raid Local 610's jurisdiction . we will strictly abide in our jurisdiction with
relation to Local 610, we will turn over to Local 610. with the approval of the
membership, whatever we have organized now in their jurisdiction. Local 610
further agrees that they never interfered in our jurisdiction." Chavez also conceded
DORADO BEACH HOTEL 719
that the pact provided that in the event Ramos ceased being trustee for Local
610, the Teamsters International could unilaterally revoke the agreement.
On the basis of the entire record as made I find that the copy received in evidence,
set out in full immediately following this section of this report, is the Miller-Hoffa
pact. The more significant provisions are as follows:
Teamsters Organizer Ramos to be appointed as trustee over Local 610.
Teamsters International to withdraw all representation petitions pending
before the National Labor Relations Board in the hotel and restaurant industry
in Puerto Rico.
Teamsters International to transfer to Local 610 all of those of its members
in the hotel and restaurant industry.
"It is further agreed and understood that there shall be no press releases of any
kind concerning this agreement." 2
The agreement to remain in force for 5 years, but the Teamsters could
unilaterally terminate it if Ramos ceased to be the principal officer of Local 610.
Ramos to have full charge of the staff as well as the right of hiring and dis-
charging employees of Local 610.
"It is further agreed that his [Ramos'] successor during the life of this agree-
ment shall be subject to the approval of the Teamsters Union."
COPY OF AGREEMENT IN EVIDENCE
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, hereinafter referred to as the Teamsters International, and
the Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, here-
inafter referred to as the Hotel Employees International, in exchange for the
mutual promises and other consideration set forth herein, do hereby agree
and convenant as follows:
1. The Hotel Employees International shall appoint as trustee of Hotel
Employees Local Union 610, Brother Lepoldo D. Ramos, at present a member
and organizer of Teamsters Local Union 901. The Hotel Employees Inter-
national shall also appoint Brother Ramos as a Hotel Employees International
Organizer, with the understanding that Brother Ramos will be on the payroll
.of the Hotel Employees International and will conduct his activities in accordance
with the rules and procedures of the Hotel Employees International under the
.direction of General President Edward S. Miller, or his successor.
2. The Teamsters International shall withdraw all representation petitions
vnow pending before the National Labor Relations Board, with the exception of
the La Concha petition, and for the life of this agreement shall not file any further
-petitions with the National Labor Relations Board with respect to employees in
Puerto Rico falling within the jurisdiction of the Hotel Employees International.
The Teamsters International shall also transfer to Hotel Employees Local
Union No. 610 all its members in Puerto Rico who now fall within the jurisdic-
tion of the Hotel Employees International.
3. The Hotel Employees International agrees that negotiations for collective
bargaining agreements to cover the members of Hotel Employees Local Union
^610 shall be conducted on a local union level and shall be subject to the approval
,of the members involved.
4. It is further mutually agreed that a Teamster-Hotel Employees Joint
,Organizing Committee shall be established by the Teamsters International and
ithe Hotel Employees International, with the express understanding, however,
,that,the Hotel Employees International will not be requested to become, and
will not become, a part of any effort to organize any workers who do not fall
within its established jurisdiction. Joint Organizing drives shall be financed in
-the manner mutually agreed upon by the Teamsters International and the Hotel
Employees International. It is further agreed and understood that if the Joint
Organizing Committee should decide to organize employees beyond the
geographic territory of Puerto Rico, specifically in the Caribbean Island area, the
Hotel Employees International shall agree in advance either to participate in
the particular organizing drive or, in the event the Hotel Employees International
should determine that it does not wish to participate in the particular drive, the
2 In my judgment the patently incredible testimony of the witnesses Ramons, Chavez,
and Kenney concerning their purported inability to recall the terms of the agreement, and
-the revealing statement by Attorney Torres concerning this asserted ignorance of the pact,
:,support the finding that this provision, appearing in the exhibit copy, was part of the
ooriginal signed document.
720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hotel Employees Union shall agree in advance that if the Teamsters International
shall organize the employees involved , the employees will remain members of
the Teamsters International and will not be transferred to the Hotel Employees
International.
5. It is further agreed and understood that there shall be no press releases
of any kind concerning this agreement . At a meeting of the members of Hotel
Employees Local Union 610, International Organizer Ramos will be introduced
to the members as the International Trustee of the Local , and International
Organizer Ramos will announce to the membership of the Local the establish-
ment of the Joint Organizing Committee.
This agreement shall remain in full force and effect for five years after the
date of its execution unless it is modified by mutual consent of the parties, or
unless its implementation becomes impossible by operation of law. However, it
is expressly understood that the Teamsters International may unilaterally ter-
minate this agreement if Brother Ramos ceases to be the principal executive
officer of Hotel Employees Local Union 610.
FOR THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSE-
MEN, AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
(S) James R. Hoffa,
JAMES R. HOFFA,
General President.
FOR THE HOTEL AND RESTAURANT EM-
PLOYEES AND BARTENDERS INTERNATIONAL
UNION,
(S) Ed S. Miller,
EDWARD S. MILLER,
General President.
(Handwritten)
Leopoldo D. Ramos shall be the principal officer of the Local 610 and as such
have full charge of the staff and as such shall have the right of hiring and firing
staff.
It is further agreed that his successor during the life of this agreement shall be
subject to the approval of the teamsters union.
E. Evolution of the Independiente from Local 610
When Miller , of the Hotel and Restaurant Workers International , agreed with
Hoffa, of the Teamsters International , to deliver complete control over the Puerto
Rico Local to a Teamsters organizer, the local union was in the hands of Trustee
Frias, the last of a long line of such trustees who had been sent from the States over
several years. The last meeting of employees or of members in Local 610 had taken
place in February of the year before, when the last election of officers was also held.
A later trustee , Parron, removed all of the elected representatives . In consequence,
at the beginning of March 1962 there were no regularly elected union officers. There
was, however , a still-functioning executive board ; this, according to the uncontra-
dicted evidence , by gracious sufferance of Trustee Parron in June of 1961. In addi-
tion, there were a number of organizers employed by Local 610 , a number of stewards
who functioned at the different hotels and restaurants where union members worked,
and an office staff consisting , so far as the record shows, of an office manager and a
janitor. It also appears that one Rosario served as treasurer of the executive board,
and one Boucher as vice president of the board . If it can be said that there were any
"officers" or leaders among the union members in the Puerto Rico Local at that time
these were the only such persons. In addition there was Frias, the trustee, and
Dennis, the would-be trustee, who still functioned under Frias as secretary -treasurer.
These last two, of course, were simply representatives of International President
Miller from Cincinnati , and not leaders of the Union in the sense that officers are
the selectees of its members.
Word of the pact and of the imminent designation of a Teamsters organizer to
take over Local 610 reached Puerto Rico on about March 9 or 10. There was an
immediate protest reaction by a large number of union members, including particu-
larly members of the executive board and the longtime Local 610 organizers. A
spontaneous move to prevent a Teamsters ' takeover was born . Stewards, organizers,
and members of the executive board constituted themselves into a steering com-
mittee. This group remained somewhat amorphous for a few days until by the 13th
or the 14th it jelled into a solid group of between 10 and 20 persons . Its first
action was to send a telegram to Miller in Cincinnati telling him that the agreement
DORADO BEACH HOTEL 721
had "aroused general indignation of our membership" and demanding "immediate
autonomy." A copy of this telegram was simultaneously sent to Mr. Meany, presi-
dent of the AFL-CIO .3 By return telegram Miller swept aside the employees' pro-
test and said that Ramos had been hired "because of his experience in the hotel and
restaurant field." The steering committee repeated its protest to Miller by telegram
once again on March 13, saying they "reject" the appointment of a Teamsters or-
ganizer over Local 610. No further response was ever received by this group from
Miller.
At 2:30 in the morning of March 13, Ramos, accompanied by five regular Team-
sters Local 901 organizers (Gotay, Gonzalez, Mercadero, Henry Lugo, and Angel
Ortiz) appeared at the office of Local 610 and attempted to gain possession of the
premises, the records, and all other property belonging to the Union. They were con-
fronted by certain union members who had anticipated this move and who called the
local police authorities in advance. There resulted a period of extreme confusion
from that early hour until perhaps noon of the same day. As word spread through-
out the hotels, union members, stewards, and members of the executive board kept
coming to the office and forming a mass obstruction to the entry of Ramos. At one
time there were as many as 80 persons crowding the office rooms, mostly Local 610
members, but including also perhaps 15 members of Teamsters Local 901. The
police sided with the Local 610 people and kept the Ramos group out. At one point
Ramos was permitted to go to the second floor office, but he never succeeded in
gaining physical possession of any records or other property of Local 610. The
steering committee was in virtually constant session, with members coming and
going There were lawyers in profusion: Delgado, longtime Local 610 attorney;
Torres, Teamsters lawyer generally and up to that moment attorney of record for
Teamsters Local 901 in the Dorado Hotel representation proceeding; Andreu Ribas,
Chavez' legal representative and also a Teamsters lawyer; and Hipolito Marcano,
Puerto Rican senator and president of the Puerto Rico Federation of Labor, who
encouraged the local union in its struggle for independence from either of the Inter-
national unions.
Eventually, Ramos and the Teamsters organizers left the area; Ramos has never
succeeded in gaining possession of any of the records or documents of the old Local
610 Later in the day he visited the two local banks where the union funds were
on deposit, claimed the right to make withdrawals, and succeeded in having the funds
frozen. With the conflicting claim advanced by the steering committee on behalf of
the Independiente these funds in the hands of the banks remained for disposition by
court litigation.
All those persons who could in any way be said to be officers or agents of Local
610 as it was constituted before these events, apart from Trustee Frias and former
Trustee Dennis, became part of the steering committee. This included all members
of the executive board, Rosario and Boucher, treasurer and vice president respec-
tively of that board, the office staff, and a considerable number of stewards and
organizers. It does not appear that a single person who could be said to have held
any kind of elected or appointed office in the Union joined forces with Ramos in any
way.
Members of the steering committee spent the major portion of the afternoon of
March 13 duplicating from 5,000 to 6,000 copies of a notice calling a general mass
meeting of union members for the next day. The announced purpose of the meeting
as stated in the notice, was to protest the appointment of a Teamsters organizer as
trustee and to consider disaffiliation from the AFL-CIO. That notice was widely
distributed throughout the Island to employees and to various hotels and restaurants.
On March 14, there took place a mass meeting of members of the Union. The
steering committee, assisted by Attorney Delgado, was in charge. Maldonado, a
longtime organizer of Local 610 and for some time the office manager, testified that
there were present for the meeting between 400 and 600 members. Bias Panzardi,
an old organizer from Local 610 who defected to Ramos 3 months after the March
events, testified that in his opinion there were "around 150, more or less." Rivera,
who acted as secretary to take minutes of the meeting, set the number at about 300.
s The Miller-Hoffa pact appears to be a clear violation of the policy statement of the
AFL-CIO executive council issued August 18, 1958 , which reads , in pertinent part:
Therefore , this Executive Council declares it to be the policy of the AFL-CIO that
any alliance or agreement , formal or informal , between an affiliate of the AFL-CIO
and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters be cancelled . Further, that this
above-stated principle applies to any proposals for new alliances or agreements be-
tween the corrupt leadership of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and any
AFL-CIO affiliate. [ See 42 LRRM 5'8.]
722 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is clear that the gathering overflowed the meeting hall and offices occupied by the
Union. The men stood about on the streets and the sidewalks; loudspeakers were
set up so that persons outside the building could hear what went on in the crowded
rooms upstairs. This was clearly the largest turnout of any membership meeting the
witnesses could recall. The last meeting of employees that ever took place in this
Union, back in February 1961, was attended by about 200 persons. In the interval,
,of course, the affairs of the Union were conducted by successive trustees who were
not obligated to, and do not appear to have consulted the desires of the membership.
The meeting proceeded for its announced purpose and a motion to disaffiliate from
the AFL-CIO and to go independent was made; it was seconded a number of times.
There ensued a general shout of approval. A call was made for no votes and none
was heard. There was also a motion to reject the appointment "of any Teamster as
trustee of our union." In like fashion, no negative votes being voiced, the motion
was unanimously deemed carried. The individual membership of the newly formed
steering committee was announced, 20 names were read off as constituting the control
committee, and the matter stood at that point. The evidence as a whole shows clearly
that when expressions of opinion were voiced by individual members they were in the
form of general cheering in the building and outside to show a universal approval and
,enthusiasm for what was going on in the meeting room itself.
Sometime in April a revised constitution was prepared and adopted. It followed
substantially the terms of the old Local 610 AFL-CIO constitution, differing primarily
by deletion of all references to the International Union and to those matters that are
pertinent to an affiliated local. The name of the organization was changed only by
the dropping the AFL-CIO Local designation.
As an independent union this group then proceeded to campaign for membership,
to participate in election proceedings, and generally to carry on in a attempt to repre-
sent employees in the hotel and restaurant industry throughout Puerto Rico. What
funds were on deposit in the name of old Local 610 in the banks remained frozen;
all the properties of the old union, including the physical offices and books and records,
have at all times remained in the control of the steering committee.
F. The activities of Leopoldo Ramos Ducos as trustee
The appointment of Ramos as trustee of Local 610 was effective March 12, 1962.
He testified that after failing to obtain possession of the Union's records he did
nothing for about 1 month. He rented an office in the beginning of April, paying
the first rent on April 16. About the same day he hired four persons to work for
him as organizers: Angel Ortiz, Henry Lugo (these two had accompanied him during
the night of March 12 and 13 to seize the records), Angel Ramon, and Victor Marti-
nez. All four of these had been regular Teamsters Local 901 organizers in the hotel
and restaurant industry prior to that day. Sometime in June he added to his staff
two other former Teamsters organizers, Victor Ortiz Jusino and Adolfo Urdo. By
the time of the hearing in October, two other organizers were working for him-
Miguel Cruz and Blas Panzardi-each of whom defected from the Independiente to
to go to work for Ramos.
Operating out of his office and with these organizers to assist him, Ramos proceeded
to draft and have printed a large number of campaign leaflets which the organizers
distributed at the various hotels and restaurants, calling upon workmen to join or to
vote in favor of Local 610, AFL-CIO. Ramos went on to testify that he never held
any meeting of employees or of union members until the month of September.
Sometime in April he prepared a form demand letter which he distributed to those
hotel and restaurant employers whom he believed to have unexpired contracts with
Local 610; he called upon them to recognize him as the authorized representative of
the contracting union and to pay over to him dues checkoffs and other welfare benefits
called for in the agreements. He said he asked International Vice President Kenney
for copies of contracts in effect but that Kenney never sent them to him. Ramos
also testified that none of these employers recognized him as the spokesman for the
bargaining agent; that none forwarded any money to him; that some withheld ac-
tion because of the conflicting claim received from the Independiente; and that others
placed the dues checkoff payments in the hands of the local courts pending final
litigation.
G. Evidence indicating that after March 13, 1962, Local 610 AFL-CIO, was an
activity of Teamster Local 901 in disguise
1. The Miller-Hoffa pact, upon which the Ramos designation as trustee rested,
contains several provisions which show convincingly that Ramos was not selected for
.this post because of any personal qualifications, but only because of his status as a
DORADO BEACH HOTEL 723
Teamsters organizer. One clause provides that the "deal" would be off if Ramos
were removed. Another specifies that any successor trustee must also be acceptable
to the Teamsters International. It follows from these agreements that what Miller
intended to concede, and what Hoffa was exacting by the placement of Ramos in
complete charge of the Local, was not merely the use of an experienced organizer
or union leader, but instead the permanent entrenchment of a Teamsters representa-
tive in unfettered control of Local 610.
2. The pact also provides that there should be established a joint organizing com-
mittee of the Teamsters International and the Hotel and Restaurant workers Inter-
national. Chavez, the Teamsters International representative in Puerto Rico, ad-
mitted candidly no such cooperative step was ever taken.
3. Chavez was as much a participant in the effort to take over the offices and the
records of Local 610 as was Ramos himself. Together they discussed the pact with
Myra Wolfgang, an AFL-CIO International vice president, at a hotel a day or two
before the events of March 13. Late in the evening of March 12, Maldonado, a
spokesman for the temporary steering committee, met Chavez at the hotel and told
him of the telegram which had been sent to Miller in Cincinnati, giving the latter a
48-hour ultimatum to cancel the designation of the new trustee. According to Mal-
donado, Ramos was also present and Chavez said to him that he should go to the office
but wait 24 hours. Chavez recalled having told Ramos that night "he should go in
the morning, early, go in the office . . . because if not the politicians might try to
stop him." Ramos testified that he sat on a sofa 6 feet away from the other two while
they talked but did not hear what they said. I discredit his denial.
When Ramos attempted to take over the Local 610 office at 2:30 the next morning,
and continued his efforts throughout the day, Chavez was there to assist him. At
precisely what time Chavez arrived is not clear on the record but I think it un-
important to decide exactly at what moment he came. According to him he arrived
at about 10 o'clock; he had simply heard there were "a lot of policemen there" and
"I wanted to see what it was all about, that's all." Perez, another witness and one
of a group guarding the office during the night, put Chavez together with Ramos at
the very hour when the Teamsters group arrived at 2.30 a.m. Ramos, who gave a
more detailed story of the events, stated unequivocally that after having trouble
with the old group which prevented his entry, he personally went to the home of
Chavez at 6 a.m. to pick him up. He continued to say that he and Chavez then
together went to the hotel to confer with Myra Wolfgang at about 6:30 a.m.; and
that together they returned to the office where by that time there were perhaps 80
persons milling about the place. Regardless of the hour when Chavez may have
arrived, there is no question but that he was there early in the morning, that he went
there for the purpose of assisting the takeover, and that he, like Ramos, was in the
company of the several regular Teamsters organizers.
With time the police permitted Ramos to ascend to the second floor office, but he
had no success in gaining control or possession of anything. He walked out to the
balcony facing the street and called down to Chavez, who was on the sidewalk.
According to Ramos he told Chavez, "There is a jam in here-they refuse to give
me the records, to hand me the records," and Chavez answered for him "to stay
there until something happened, because I [Ramos] was to call Attoney Ribas and
try to fix the problem." Chavez quoted Ramos as asking him, "What am I supposed
to do?" and then added that "maybe" he told Ramos he (Chavez) would call his
own lawyer. On Chavez' admission Andreu Ribas is his lawyer, and a "Teamsters
lawyer." I do not know who called Ribas, for Ramos and Chavez each testified it
was he who telephoned the lawyer. Ribas did arrive, and shortly thereafter, as
attorney of record for Ramos, filed an injunction proceeding in the Federal District
Court against the old members of Local 610. I think on this record, and particularly
in view of the demeanor of Ramos and Chavez on the witness stand, a more reliable
version of the instructions Chavez called up to Ramos on the balcony, and the version
which I credit, is that given by witness Santiago: "You don't give up a inch no matter
what it takes. They have to go and we are taking over."
4. Mr. Torres, the attorney who represented Ramos' Local 610 at the 2-week hear-
ing in this stage of the proceeding, stated on the record that he represents the Team-
sters "in certain cases, criminal cases, civil cases, and some hearings before this
Board etc and so forth." He is also the attorney who, on behalf of Teamsters Local
901, filed the petition initially in this case back in 1961 and represented Teamsters
Local 901 throughout the proceeding until the question of these objections arose.
5. Virtually all the assistants Ramos used in his campaign among the hotel
and restaurant employees, including the group at the Dorado Hotel, were Teamsters
organizers who went to work directly for him. Chavez testified it was he who
727-083-64-vol. 144-47
724 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
recommended the hiring of all six of the Teamsters who constituted Ramos' entire
payroll by June of 1962. A particularly revealing example of the influence Chavez
exercised over the activities of Ramos appears in the testimony of the trustee
himself at one point: "It was a Saturday-I was at Dorado Hotel making my
campaign. He [Chavez] showed up in my office and named two organizers to be
switched from Teamsters to Local 610. That's what I declared at the Puerto Rico
Senate . he appointed two organizers to Local 610."
6. In his activities after having hired the Teamsters organizers, Ramos prepared
and distributed a large number of leaflets in the name of Local 610, AFL-CIO. He
testified quite candidly that most of these leaflets were made at the printshop owned
and operated by the Teamsters Union. He said he paid for the printing jobs. It
also appeared that three of the many Local 610 leaflets identified and received into
evidence were printed at a private shop unconnected with Teamsters Union.
As to some of the Local 610 leaflets Ramos disclaimed any responsibility, either
for their preparation or distribution. He was flatly contradicted by Chavez. Chavez
spoke of having himself "dreamed up" the language of some of these, of their
distribution by Teamsters organizers not in Ramos' employ, and of general cam-
paign activity among hotel and restaurant workers conducted by Chavez himself.
He also said that Ramos ordered these leaflets, and paid for them directly after
their printing at the Teamsters printshop.
In fact, Chavez made no mystery of his participation in the campaign carried
on in the name of Local 610, AFL-CIO. He insisted that Ramos always paid for
leaflets printed in the Teamsters printshop, but he candidly conceded many of them
were written by himself or his personal assistants, and were distributed by both
those former Teamsters organizers who had gone to work for Ramos, and others
who had at all times remained on the payroll of Teamsters Local 901. He said
he furnished the services of his own people "gratis " Indeed, from the totality
of his testimony it appears quite clear that he virtually did not distinguish between
the Teamsters campaign among these employees before the Miller-Hoffa pact and
its continuance thereafter.
Q. Did you used to help Local 610 with your organizers at the campaigns
at the Dorado Beach Hotel?
A. Yes, oh, sure.
Q. During the election, May 4th and June 1st elections?
A. All the way through from the beginning.
He admitted quite as candidly that his organizers also campaigned during this very
period by visiting the homes of hotel and restaurant employees to solicit Local
610 adherence.
There is direct (his own testimony) evidence that even Ramos continued to think
of himself as a Teamsters representative and not as an AFL-CIO official at all. As
late as September he wrote and had his organizers distribute a leaflet attacking the
Independiente and the SIU; the pamphlet was distributed at several large hotels
whose employees were involved in another active representation proceeding before
the Board. Ramos signed this leaflet "Teamsters Local Union 901," and its closing
statement, in very large black letters, is "The Teamster always conquers."
7. Chavez completed his testimony on October 3, 1962. His last statement as a
witness was that while the pact had been in effect up to that very day, as of "now" it
was "off." Five days later, on October 8, as Ramos was concluding his testimony
in the case, he said that some of his organizers (former Teamsters) "are thinking
of going to Local 901 Teamsters . . . they have told me that they are thinking of
some conversation they had with Mr. Chavez, to go to work for Teamsters Local
901." With this, the cycle of fraud and trickery upon the employees, agreed upon
in the Miller-Hoffa pact but kept hidden by its very terms, would seem to have come
full circle. When Chavez calls the tune of agreement, the Teamsters organizers
move over to Ramos' payroll and distribute Local 610, AFL-CIO, leaflets approved
and drafted by Chavez. As soon as Chavez has a change of heart, they think of
shedding the AFL-CIO cloak and once again emerging in their true colors as
the Teamsters Union.
Concluding findings as to the nature and character of Local 610, AFL-CIO, under
the trusteeship of Ramos
About March 5, 1962, the president of the Hotel and Restaurant Employees and
Bartenders International Union signed a document officially designating a new
trustee over its Local 610, with both the name of the new designee and the effec-
tive date of the appointment left blank. On the 12th the name of Ramos was in-
DORADO BEACH HOTEL 725
serted on the document and his tenure started. Whatever may have been the legal
effect, in a very technical sense, of this action by Miller, from that moment on
Local 610, AFL-CIO, in Puerto Rico in fact ceased to exist as a labor organization
within the meaning of that term as defined in the Act .4 The only action taken
by any employees or members of the labor organization was to reject Ramos as
trustee, to disaffiliate from the International AFL-CIO, and to create a labor
organization called the Independiente . The mass meeting of March 14 was attended
by a larger group of union members than , it appears , had ever assembled at an
employee or membership meeting before . If the percentage participation at the
meeting by 400 to 500 of the total paper membership of 4,000 seems small, it must
be remembered that for several years the summary treatment of this local at the hands
of the International had precluded any meeting at all; the members were no longer
accustomed to being accorded voting rights . The motions to end any relationship
with the International , to change the Union 's name, and to continue its real existence,
were carried by universal cheers and acclamation . The leaders of the employee mem-
bers may not have been duly elected officers in the formal , traditional sense, but
this was only because for several years the action of the International president
had shut off any employee expression of choice in the matter . If any persons could
be viewed , in retrospect, as then holding positions of leadership or "officership"
among the employees , it was the members of the executive board, the officers of
that board , the stewards at the various hotels and restaurants, and the paid organizers.
To a man they moved with the disaffiliation and took respective positions continuing
in the newly formed labor organization . There is no indication at all that a single
member at that time chose to join forces with the new trustee and bring into being
any other and separate labor organization.
In contrast , the record shows clearly that for a period of a full month, from
March 12 to about April 9, Local 610, AFL-CIO consisted of nothing more than
the document designating Ramos as trustee , and Ramos himself. In the trustee's
own words, he had "no organization ." If there was a Local 610 organization at that
time, it was no more than a paper local.
When Ramos did begin to take action in April, nominally as an official of Local
610, AFL-CIO, it was only as a tool of the Teamsters Union and its International
Representative Chavez. To assist him in his attempt to persuade hotel and restaurant
workers to join forces with him, Ramos hired Teamsters organizers , the very
persons who , before the new trusteeship , had been campaigning for Teamsters Local
901. Chavez recommended the selection of the Teamsters organizers ; Chavez
"switched" organizers from the Teamsters payroll to that of Ramos. At Ramos'
request, Chavez and his personal crew in the Teamsters printshop drafted what
appeared to be Local 610 leaflets , printed them , and distributed them . It would
appear that Teamsters organizers still on the Teamsters payroll were as active in
distributing Local 610 leaflets as were the former Teamsters organizers being paid
by Ramos. One of the first inducements the new Ramos -Local 610 offered hotel and
restaurant employees was "medicines completely free of charge " at the Santa Rita
Drug Store . Chavez admitted the Santa Rita Drug Store is owned and operated
by Teamsters Local 901, and added he "thought" it has been used to dispense free
medicines to hotel employees . He said that since May 1, 1962, the Teamsters has
also owned a dispensary at the Blanco Drug Store , and here also he "thought"
Dorado Beach Hotel employees had been given free medical assistance.
Thus, the intended scheme revealed by the Miller -Hoffa pact was in fact carried
out, but in form only . The meatless shell of what used to house an energetic and
determined group of workmen did become a legal structure controlled directly, as
well as behind the scenes , by the Teamsters Union . It did not, however, grow into
the substance of a labor organization . There is no evidence that the Ramos-Local
610 ever had any members or represented any employees . Among other things, the
pact provided that the Teamsters "shall also transfer to Hotel Employees' Local
Union No. 610 all its members in Puerto Rico who now fall within the jurisdiction
of the Hotel Employees International ." I do not know whether Chavez physically
delivered to Ramos the membership or authorization cards of any employees at all.
Nor need I comment at this late date in the administration of this statute upon the
4 Section 2 ( 5) of the Act reads as follows:
The term "labor organization " means any organization of any kind , or any agency
or employee representation committee or plan, in which employees participate and
which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part , of dealing with employers concern-
ing grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates of pay, hours of employment , or conditions
of work . [ Emphasis supplied I
726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
legal effect of any such agreement or transfer of employees by union leaders from one
union to another. It is clear, however, that between March 12 and sometime in
September no union employee meeting of any kind was held by Ramos for his Local
610. None of the employers who previously had contracts with Local 610 recog-
nized him as a bargaining agent. None of them accorded him the contractual
benefits flowing from the existing agreements covering employees in the hotel and
restaurant industry. He never came into possession of any of the assets, or records,
of the true labor organization to which the employees chose to adhere. In sum,
whatever existence Local 610, AFL-CIO, had in Puerto Rico centered in Ramos and
in Ramos alone. Local 610 was but a fiction, or, at best, a legal technicality created
by the stroke of the pen when Miller named a trustee. There was no more a Local
610 affiliated labor organization than there would be had the International issued a
charter to a designated local, with no further action taken upon it by anyone.
The situation here is not analogous to those in which the Board has had occasion
to speak of "schism" within a labor organization. There did not emerge two unions
where first there was one. Within the intendment of the statute as a whole a labor
organization is distinguished above all by the participation in its activities by "em-
ployees." In this instance, so far as appears, all the employees continued their sep-
arate organizational life exactly as they had before, with the exception that they
severed their organization from the AFL-CIO, their union otherwise remained the
same. There was no dissident or minority group which chose to remain with an
older leadership, or with an identifiable group which drew aside.5 I think the record
as a whole warrants the conclusion that the same labor organization which was born
in 1928, and which affiliated in 1957 with the AFL-CIO, continued its individual and
distinctive existence from March 13 on under the name of the Independiente. If
there was any other organization it was the Teamsters Union, whatever it chose to
call itself, or any one of its segments, at that time.
Conclusion as to the Merits of the Objections and Recommendations
The Miller -Hoffa pact was intended to have and through the activities of Ramos
and Chavez had, an impact upon hotel and restaurant employees throughout the
Island of Puerto Rico. Among the employees affected by those developments were,
of course , those of the Dorado Hotel , whose desires with respect to union representa-
tion gave rise to the question concerning representation in the proceedings now before
me. I have occasion , therefore, in this report to concern myself only with the effect
which these events, and particularly the conduct of Ramos and Chavez, had upon
the election conducted among those employees on June 1, 1962. And, more precisely,
the sole question to be answered now is whether or not their activities improperly
interfered with the freedom of the Dorado Hotel employees to cast an untrammeled
choice in their balloting.
As stated in the beginning of this report the heart of the objections centers on ob-
jections Nos. 1 and 3, which allege that "campaign propaganda circulated by the
Intervenor Local 610, HRE and BIU, AFL-CIO and/or by the petitioner " constituted
a "fraud and trickery " upon the employees , and that the petitioner (Teamsters
Local 901) circulated "slanderous leaflets . fraudulently identified as Local 610
propaganda ." These are the matters of greatest significance and the ones which I
think are dispositive of the main issue.
There are also allegations of other forms of factual misrepresentations , of gifts
offered to employees in return for their votes, of employer advice to the employees on
how to vote . The evidence as it unfolded reveals that with respect to these matters,
the campaign literature profusely distributed was not too greatly different from what
is found in most hotly contested elections. There is the usual amount of name calling,
general accusation of incompetence , offensive language, and repetitive disparagement
of opposing union leaders. As to promises of benefit , some of the Local 610 leaflets
called attention to certain forms of medicine and doctor services incident to member-
ship in , or representation by, that union . Whether this sort of advantage offered to
employees to enlist their membership can fairly be deemed economic subversion of
their freedom to vote in a representation election would be a close question in this
case. The significance of this detail in certain of Local 610 's leaflets is noted as an
incidental aspect of the major charge of fraud . In view of what I believe to be a
solid basis for resolution of the overall question raised by the objections , I deem it
pointless to consider these details apart from the case as a whole . I make no finding
that any of them would warrant setting aside the election.
5 Cf. Hebron Brick Company, 135 NLRB 245.
DORADO BEACH HOTEL 727
As to the charge that the Company improperly interfered with the election in
having "indicated" to employees how they should vote, there is no evidence worthy
of note throughout the entire long record lending any support to this objection.
The Board has long and consistently held that-
when one of the parties deliberately misstates material facts which are within
its special knowledge, under such circumstances that the other party cannot
learn about them in time to point out the errors to employees and the latter do
not have independent knowledge which will enable them properly to evaluate
the misstatements, the Board will set aside the election upon the ground that
it does not reflect the free desires of the employees.6
Such inexcusable deception practiced upon the employees has usually appeared for
Board consideration in the form of untruths about union dues, union membership
obligations, or contract wage benefits won by a competing union in other locations or
from other employers. And always when the Board set the election aside it was
because the misrepresentations related to material facts and were made in such
circumstances that the employees were unable to see through the trickery and cast
their ballots free of the misleading deception. Implicit in every one of those cases
was the finding that had the employees not been so substantially hoodwinked they
might have voted differently.
Here less than 1 month before the June 1 election the employees had voted
against the Teamsters as a bargaining agent; on May 4 only 45 voted for Teamsters
Local 901 and 120 for the Independiente. Throughout the month of May, however,
Ramos, as trustee, continued to present Local 610 to the employees as a regular
AFL-CIO union while in fact it was no more than an activity of the same Teamsters
Local which the employees had just rejected. The fraud was indeed substantial.
Certainly the employees had a right to know that a vote of the AFL-CIO in this
instance was a vote in favor of the very same union leader-Chavez-who was already
discredited. The record in its entirety leaves no doubt but that if Local 610, AFL-
CIO, as presently constituted and used, were permitted to hold a valid certification
issued by the Board, the Dorado Hotel employees would be represented in fact by
Teamsters Local 901, and not by any AFL-CIO union.
The leaders of the Independiente raised the cry that Ramos was a Teamsters
organizer; he denied it. And Miller, who was in the best position to know the true
character of Ramos' activities and the one person to whom the employees could turn
for enlightenment when a well-known Teamster presented himself as an AFL-CIO
official, reassured them in his telegram that Ramos was a bona fide agent of the Hotel
and Restaurant Workers International, and had been chosen only because of his
personal talents. He compounded the living lie that ran through all of Ramos'
talk and leaflets.? And the facts that were finally brought to light at the hearing show
not only the extent of the Teamsters domination and virtual ownership of Local 610,
but also the concerted plan to keep the employees in the dark as to the true state of
affairs. If it took 2 weeks of formal hearing to prove the Miller-Hoffa pact and its
terms, what chance did the employees have to learn the truth when all they saw was
a flood of vituperative propaganda? I think it also likely that the successful suppres-
sion of the Miller-Hoffa pact and the hidden mechanics of its implementation may
have misled the Board's Regional Director into arriving at a conclusion as to the
merits of the objections which he might not otherwise have reached.
Accordingly, I recommend that the election of June 1, 1962, be set aside , and that
the Board direct a new election to be held at such time as the Regional Director
advises the Board that an election may properly be held.
I also recommend that "Local 610, AFL-CIO" not be given a place on the ballot in
the new election, for the reason that it is not a labor organization but only a voice
of Teamsters Local 901.
I further recommend that the certification issued by the Regional Director in favor
of Local 610, AFL-CIO, be canceled.
9 Thomas Gouzoule et al. , d/b/a The Calidyne Company, 117 NLRB 1026 See also
The Prone Company, 137 NLRB 1506; and Kaicneer Company, 119 NLRB 1460
Compare Cleveland Trencher Company, 130 NLRB 600, where the Board stressed the
fact that the misrepresentations could not be disclosed, "Without ready access to the
written contracts between the petitioner and the companies " There certainly was no
"ready access" to the Miller-Hoffa pact before the October hearing in this proceeding.