Fajardo Development Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 26, 1948

76 N.L.R.B. 956 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter Of FAJARDO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY and UNION DE
EMPLEADOS DE MUELLES DE PUERTO Rico (CIO-CGT)
Case No. 24-C-144.-Decided March ^06, 1948
Mr. Yamil Galib, for the Board.
Sifre, Franceschi& Sifre, by Mr. Gonzalo Sifre, of San Juan, P. R.,
for the respondent.
Mr. Rodrigo Caneras Valle, of San Juan, P. R., for the CGT.
Mr. A. G. Moreno, of San Juan, P. R., for the ILA.
DECISION 1
AND
ORDER
On April 11, 1947, Trial Examiner J. J. Fitzpatrick issued his Inter.
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the re-
spondent, Fajardo Development Company, 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 copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. There-
after, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
a supporting brief. On April 25, 1947, the respondent requested and
was granted permission to argue orally before the Board in Washing-
ton, D. C. On December 22, 1947, the Board notified the respondent
that it had rescinded its action in granting oral argument, and that,
in lieu thereof, any party desiring to do so, would be permitted to file,
within 20 days, a supplementary brief or written argument setting
forth the matters which would have been covered in the oral argument.
None of the parties has filed such supplementary brief or written argu-
ment within the time allowed therefor.
The Board has considered 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 Inter-
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act , the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -man panel consisting of the undersigned
Board Members [ Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds].
76 N. L. R. B., No. 135.
956
FAJARDO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 957
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief filed by the respondent, and
the entire record in the case and hereby adopts the findings, conclu-
sions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the additions
set forth below.2
1. The record shows, as the Trial Examiner substantially found,
that on April 1, 1946, upon resumption of its shipping operations;
and in accordance with the terms of its "closed-shop" contract with
the ILA, entered into on March 29, 1946, the respondent requested the
ILA for a list of eligible longshoremen from which it could select its
crew. The ILA supplied such a list, which omitted the names of the
three complainants, who together with other employees included in
the list had worked for the respondent until operations were tempo-
rarily suspended in December 1945. Thereafter, upon inquiry by the
longshoremen in question, the respondent ascertained from the ILA's
officials that the sole reason for the omission of their names from the
list of eligibles was that they had engaged in activities on behalf of a
rival labor organization during the period immediately preceding the
expiration of the old "closed-shop" contract in December 1945, and
during the period prior to the execution of the new one in March 1946 4
Whereupon, the respondent refused to rehire the three complainants
as longshoremen. The respondent seeks to justify such refusal under
the terms of its "closed-shop" contract of March 29, 1946.5
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the "closed-shop" agreement
is no defense to the otherwise unlawful discrimination against the
complainants, for the reason that the respondent knew that the ILA
refused to certify the complainants for employment, as provided for
in the agreement, because they had engaged in union activity on behalf
of a rival organization at a time when it was appropriate for them to
seek a change in their bargaining representatives Unlike most cases
of this kind, the rival activity for which the complainants were de-
2 Section 8 (1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, considered by the Trial
Examiner , has been continued in the Act by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947,
as Section 8 (a) (1) and 8 (a) (3), except that the proviso to the former Section 8 (3)
has been modified by the Act, as amended. However , this modification , which substantially
restricts the scope and protection of the original proviso, is not applicable to this case.
8 The respondent had ceased temporarily its sugar-grinding operations during the inter-
vening period between the expiration of its last contract with the ILA, December 1945, and
the execution of its new one on March 29, 1946. Therefore, the respondent' s shipping
operations were at a standstill , and no longshoremen were employed during this period.
' It is noted that the three longshoremen in question continued to be dues-paying mem-
bers in good standing of the ILA during this entire period
.5 The "closed-shop" provision in this contract provides, in substance, that upon request,
the ILA shall furnish the respondent with a list of qualified longshoremen from which it
could hire its crew, and that the respondent shall restrict its selection from longshoremen
whose names appear on such list.
9 Matter of Portland Lumber Mills , 64 N. L. R. B. 159, enforced (C. C. A. 9 ) 158 F. (2d)
365, cert . denied 21 L. R. B M. 2172 ; Matter of Rutland Court Owners, Inc., 44 N. L. R. B.
587 -
958 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nied employment was not only timely in relation to the agreement
which expired in December 1945, and which is not here in issue, but
actually occurred before the execution of the new agreement under
which they were denied employment. In our opinion, this circum-
stance constitutes a further reason for denying the protection of the
proviso to Section 8 (3) of the Act to the discrimination here in
question.
The proviso permits the execution of agreements which require
during their term membership in qualified labor organizations as a
condition of employment, but no such agreement may be retroactively
applied so as to penalize employees for campaigning against the con-
tracting organization and on behalf of a rival before the execution of
the agreement.7 To legalize, under the guise of the proviso, the denial
of employment to the complainants for the discriminatory reasons
known by all parties, would substantially impair, if not nullify, the em-
ployees' right to select or change bargaining representatives at ap-
propriate times. Thus, in all cases where it appeared likely, or even
probable, that union security agreements might follow the selection
of a bargaining representative, employees would be compelled to spec-
ulate as to which organization would ultimately win the support of
the majority to avoid a possibility of loss of employment under the
resultant agreement. The employees' right to select or change bar-
gaining representatives would be impaired to the extent that, instead
of being able to exercise their basic right with the freedom and
immunity against reprisal contemplated by the Act, they would be
required to act at the peril of correctly guessing which of the contend-
ing organizations would ultimately be successful.
We therefore find, like the Trial Examiner, that the respondent
discriminatorily denied employment as longshoremen to the complain-
ants because of their union activity in violation of Section 8 (3) of
the Act.
2. We find no merit in the respondent's contention that the com-
plainants were merely applicants for employment and not employees,
as found by the Trial Examiner, and that therefore the legal theory
relied on by the Trial Examiner is not here applicable. The record
indicates that the respondent's business was seasonal and that during
certain periods it suspended its shipping operations and laid off all its
longshoremen. The record further shows that the respondent fol-
lowed a general practice of recalling its laid-off longshoremen when-
ever work became available. The complainants had worked for the
respondent for a considerable period of time and, in accordance with
4 Wallace Corporation v. N. L. R . B., 323 U. S. 248; Oolonie -Fibre Company v. N. L. R. B.,
163 F. ( 2d) 65 ( C. C. A. 2).
FAJARDO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 959
the seasonal demands of the business, had been laid off and recalled on
a number of occasions. They were employed at the time of the last
seasonal shut-down (December 1945). Under these circumstances, we
are convinced, and find, that they had a reasonable expectation of
being recalled to work on April 1, 1946, when the respondent resumed
its shipping operations, and would have been so recalled but for the
ILA's refusal to certify them as eligible for employment. We there-
fore find, in accordance with prior decisions,8 that during the seasonal
shut-down from December 1945 to April 1, 1946, the complainants
retained their employee status with the respondent as temporary
"lay-offees." e
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, Fajardo Develop-
ment Company, Fajardo, Puerto Rico, and its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Union de Empleados de Muelles
de Puerto Rico (CIO-CGT), or in any other labor organization of its
employees, by discharging or refusing to hire or reinstate any of its
employees, or in any manner discriminating in regard to their hire or
tenure of employment or any term or condition of their employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with the efforts of its em-
ployees to designate a new bargaining representative to succeed an
existing one upon the termination of the latter's contract.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer Monserrate Prado, Manolo Cordero, and Felix Davila,
and each of them, immediate and full reemployment in his former
or a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his senior.
ity and other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole Monserrate Prado, Manolo Cordero, and Felix
Davila, for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the
respondent's discrimination against them by payment to each of them
of a sum of money equal to an amount determined in the manner set
8 See Matter of United States Fruit Company, 2 N. L. R B. 896, at page 900; Matter of
Todd Shipyards Corporation, 5 N. L. R. B 20 ; Matter of Weinberger Banana Company, Inc,
18 N L. R. B. 786
9It is apparent that the respondent has in effect acknowledged that the complainants
and all other persons similarly laid off had employee status, for during the temporary shut-
down it bargained with the ILA as the majority representative of all laid-off employees. In
any event, the complainants even as applicants are entitled to the protection of Section
8 (3) of the Act, under the doctrine enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States
in Phelps-Dodge Co) poration v. N. L. R. B., 313 U. S. 177.
960 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
forth in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled, "The
remedy" ;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places at its offices in Fajardo,
Puerto Rico, copies of the notices attached to the Intermediate Report
marked "Appendix A." 10 Copies of such notices, to be furnished by
the Regional Director for the Twenty-Fourth Region shall, after
being duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted by the
respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for
at least sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure that such
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region (Baltimore,
Maryland) in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this
Order, what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
NOTE: In Matter of Lewis Meier d Company, 73 N. L. R. B. 520, and in Matter
of E. L. Bruce Company , 75 N. L. R. B. 522, Member Reynolds indicated the rea-
sons for his disagreement with the Board 's position as to the remedy to be ap-
plied in cases such as the present where employees are illegally discharged under
a closed-shop contract. However, since the Board 's position is now settled de-
cisional law with respect to the unfair labor practices here, which were com-
mitted prior to August 22, 1947, the effective date of the amended Act, Member
Reynolds concurs in the results reached herein.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Yamal Galtb, for the Board.
Sifre, Franceschi d Sifre, by Mr. Gonzalo Sifre, of San Juan, P R, for the
Respondent.
Mr. Rodrigo Caneras Valle, of San Juan, P. R., for the CGT
Mr. A. G. Moreno, of San Juan, P. R, for the ILA.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge filed January 30, 1947, by Union de Empleados de
Muelles de Puerto Rico (CIO-CGT), herein called CGT, the National Labor
Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the
Twenty-fourth Region (San Juan, Puerto Rico), issued its complaint dated
January 30, 1947, against Fajardo Development Company, herein called the
Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section S (T)
and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act
Copies of the amended charge and the amended complaint together with notices
of hearing thereon were duly served upon CGT, the Respondent, the Fajardo
10 This notice, however , shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking from the first
paragraph the words , "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner" and substituting in
lieu thereof the words "A Decision and Order." In the event that this Order is enforced
by a decree of a Circuit Couit of Appeals, there shall be inserted before the N%ords "A Deci-
sion and Order," the wools "Decree of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals
Luforcing "
FAJARDO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 961
Sugar Company,' and upon Union de Lancheros Trabajadores de Muelles De-
pendentes de la Playa de Fajardo , affiliated with International Longshoremen's
Association , herein called ILA.
With respect to the unfair labor practices , the amended complaint alleged in
substance that the Respondent interfered with the rights of its employees as
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by on or about April 1, 1946, terminating the
employment of Monserrate Prado, and transferring Felix Davila and Manolo
Cordero to work not substantially equivalent to their former jobs, and refusing
thereafter to reinstate any of them , because of their membership in and activi-
ties on behalf of CGT and their activities against ILA.
The Respondent thereafter filed its answer wherein it denied the allegations of
unfair labor practices contained in the amended complaint . The answer further
alleged that if there was any controversy in regard to the employment of the three
workers named in the amended complaint , it was a matter "wholly and ex-
clusively " between the three employees and ILA and in which there was no "inter-
vention" by the Respondent.
Pursuant to due notices a hearing was held at San Juan, Puerto Rico, on
February 11, 12, and 13 , 1947, before J. J. Fitzpatrick , the undersigned Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner . The Board and the
Respondent were represented by counsel , the ILA and CGT by officials. All
participated in the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing upon
the issues . At the close of the hearing , counsel for the Board and for the
Respondent argued orally on the record , and all parties were granted time to
file briefs with the undersigned after the conclusion of the hearing No briefs
have been received After the close of the hearing the undersigned , upon his
own motion , ordered certain corrections made in the transcript of the record.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Fajardo Development Company is a transportation company engaged, among
other activities, in the shipping of raw sugar from its docks at the Port of Fajardo,
Puerto Rico, to ports in continental United States. Notwithstanding its denial
in the answer, the undersigned finds that the Respondent is engaged in business
within the meaning of the Act.'
II THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Union de Empleados de Muelles de Puerto Rico (CIO-CGT), and Union de
Lancheros Trabajadores de Muelles Dependentes de In Playa de Fajardo, affiliated
with International Longshoremen's Association, are labor organizations admitting
to membership employees of the Respondent.
'The amended complaint named Fajardo Sugar Company also as a respondent How-
ever, shortly after the opening of the hearing, a motion was granted (with the acquiescence
of Board's counsel) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as Fajardo Sugar Company
was concerned
2The above findings are based upon allegations in the amended complaint as to the nature
of Respondent's business not specifically denied in the answer, and upon a questionnaire
signed by the Respondent's superintendent prior to the hearing, and received in evidence,
wherein the Respondent admitted that it was engaged in inteistate commerce within the
meaning of the National Laboi Relations Act
962 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The facts
In the course of its business of handling for export to the United States the
sugar milled by its affiliate, Fajardo Sugar Company, the Respondent employs
longshoremen and dock workers. About the year 1938, the Respondent entered
into a contract with ILA wherein, among other things, ILA agreed to supply
longshoremen for the Respondent's needs, and Respondent agreed to employ no
other longshoremen, excepting only when and if ILA failed or refused to furnish
the number of workers required.' This contractual arrangement was continued
each year thereafter with the possible exception of certain periods during the
war when no boats were available for shipping. In December 1945 the then
existing contract which carried such a hiring arrangement with ILA expired.
Thereafter in the winter of 1946 negotiations were entered into between ILA and
the Respondent for a new contract' These negotiations culminated in the execu-
tion by ILA and the Respondent of a new contract on March 29, 1946, containing
hiring provisions identical with those described above.
In the meantime, however, in the late fall of 1945 as well as in the early
winter of 1946, a number of the Respondent 's longshoremen had organized the
CGT. The leaders of this movement to secure a new bargaining representative
were Felix Davila , former president of the ILA, Monserrate Prado and Manolo
Cordero. The three named employees, about March 12, 1946, demanded that
the Respondent enter into bargaining negotiations with CGT as the exclusive
representative of the Respondent's longshoremen. The Respondent requested
proof that CGT represented a majority of the 150-odd longshoremen ordinarily
employed by the Respondent. This proof was not produced and as no further
efforts were made by this committee, or other representative of CGT, to establish
CGT's majority status,5 on March 29, as above found, the Respondent entered
into a new contract with ILA, which contract was effective as of that date and
current at the time of the hearing.
On April 1, 1946, Respondent, in accordance with the contract terms, notified
ILA that it needed a crew of longshoremen to load a ship that was then avail-
able. Thereupon ILA furnished such a list, but it did not contain the names
of the three who acted on the CGT committee above referred to, Davila, Prado,
and Cordero. These three then sought employment directly from the Respond-
ent. Upon inquiry, the Respondent ascertained from ILA officials that the three
claimants were excluded from the list because they were "traitors" to ILA and
had been guilty of dual unionism. Because of the existing practice and the
contract terms, the Respondent refused to hire the three as longshoremen, but
on April 2, offered Cordero and Davila work as ship watchmen 6 The offer was
accepted and the two named have since worked as watchmen whenever it has
been necessary to load a ship. Watchmen are not paid as much as longshoremen,
8 When a ship was due to be loaded with sugar , Respondent notified ILA of the approxi-
mate number of workers needed. ILA then prepared and sent to the Respondent a list of
ILA workers who were available. The Respondent made its selection of workers from
this list, but reserved the right to supplement employees if the ILA list proved inadequate.
4 The mill in Fajardo was not grinding in the winter months of 1946 and there was
therefore no sugar to be shipped during that period.
c Felix Davila 's testimony is credited that the committee was unable to produce proof
that CGT represented a majority.
6 Ship watchmen were not included in the terms of the contract with ILA.
FAJARDO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 963
and the work is not substantially equivalent employment as that term has
been defined by the Board. Prado has not been employed in any capacity by the
Respondent.
The record shows without dispute and the undersigned finds that Prado,
Cordero, and Davila were old experienced longshoremen with good records, who,
for many years, had been employed by the Respondent when longshoremen were
needed. It is also found that all three were paid-up members of ILA in the
early winter and spring of 1946, and that for years prior to 1946, the names
of Prado, Cordero, and Davila were always included on the lists of longshore-
men presented to the Respondent by ILA. It is further found, as stipulated by
the parties, that if the Respondent in 1946 had attempted to employ longshoremen
not on the ILA list, that contracting union would have objected to such procedure,
and if the Respondent persisted in spite of such objection, ILA would have
called a strike in protest.
B. Conclusions
It is now well settled law that it constitutes an unfair labor practice for an
employer to discharge an employee, or otherwise change the terms and con-
ditions of his employment, even when requested to do so by a union, apparently
protected under the proviso of Section 8 (3) of the Act, with a current closed-
shop contract, where the employer knows that the employee is thereby being
penalized because he sought, at an appropriate time, to change the collective
bargaining representative? In the instant case, no contract limiting the method
of hiring or discharging the Respondent's employees was in existence in the
early winter of 1946 when Prado, Cordero, and Davila notified the Respondent
that they, and other employees, were interested in making a change in the
bargaining representative. Therefore, the question of whether these three em-
ployees chose an appropriate time to proselytize for another union is not in-
volved, and their activity in that respect is fully protected under the express
terms of the Act.
Without questioning the Respondent's good faith and recognizing that it
probably would have been confronted with a strike in April 1946, if it had
insisted on permitting Prado, Cordero, and Davila to resume their former long-
shoremen duties, it must also be remembered that by following the course it
did and cooperating with ILA, Respondent prevented these three workers from
continuing in what otherwise would have been their normal employment, because
of their union activity. Such an attitude on the part of an employer toward
union activities of its employees is proscribed by the Act. It is therefore found
that the Respondent, by refusing in April 1946 and thereafter to hire Prado,
Cordero and Davila as longshoremen, has discriminated as to their hire and
tenure of employment to discourage membership in a union in violation of
Section 8 (3) of the Act, and has thereby interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of Respondent described in Section I, above,
4 The Wallace Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 323 U. S. 248; Matter of Rutland Court Owners,
Inc, 44 N. L. R. B 587; 46 N. L. R. B. 1040; Matter of Portland Lumber Mills, 64 N. L.
R B. 159 enforced (C. C. A. 9), 158 F. (2d) 365; Matter of Diamond T. Motor Car Co.,
64 N. L. R B. 1225; Matter of Southwestern Portland Cement Co., 65 N. L. R. B. 1; Mat-
ter of Cliffs Dow Chemical Co, 64 N. L. R. B 1419.
781902--48-vol. 76-62
964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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
Since it has been found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondent discriminated as to the hire and
tenure of employment of Prado, Cordero, and Davila, by refusing on April 2,
1946, and thereafter, to reinstate them to their former employment as long-
shoremen, because they had joined or assisted CGT and engaged in concerted
activities. It will therefore be recommended that the Respondent, upon request
restore Prado, Cordero, and Davila, and each of them, to his former or sub-
stantially equivalent position e which he would have held absent the discrimina-
tion, and make each of them whole for any loss he may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination by payment to him of a sum of money which he
normally would have earned from April 2, 1946, to the date of the offer of such
employment, less his net earnings s during that period.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record
in the case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1. Union de Empleados de Muelles de Puerto Rico (CIO-CGT), and Union de
Lancheros Trabajadores de Muelles Dependentes, de la Playa de Fajardo, affili-
ated with International Longshoremen's Association, are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of
Monserrate Prado, Manolo Cordero, and Felix Davila, and each of them, thereby
discouraging membership in Union de Empleados de Muelles de Puerto Rico
(CIO-CGT), the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. By said conduct the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
undersigned recommends that the Respondent, Fajardo Development Company,
Fajardo, Puerto Rico, its officers, agents, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Union de Empleados de Muelles de Puerto
Rico (CIO-CGT), or any other labor organization of its employees, by discharg-
3 Employment at a "substantially equivalent" position does not constitute compliance
unless the "same" position no longer exists The remedial provisions of the Act contem-
plate the restoration as nearly as possible of the situation which would have existed except
for the discrimination. See Matter of The Chase National Bank of the City of New Yoik,
San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branc)•, 65 N L R B 827
1 Matter of Crossett Lainbei Co , 8 N. L. R B 440, 497-498
FAJARDO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 965
ing or refusing to hire or reinstate any of its employees, or in any other manner
discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term
or condition of employment;
(b) Any other acts in any manner interfering with the efforts of its employees
to designate a new bargaining representative to succeed an existing bargaining
representative upon the termination of the latter's contract.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Monserrate Prado, Manolo Cordero, and Felix Davila, and each
of them, immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equiv-
alent position without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole Monserrate Prado, Manolo Cordero, and Felix Davila, for any
loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination
against them, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to an amount
determined in the manner set forth in the section above entitled, "The remedy" ;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places at its offices in Fajardo, Puerto
Rico, copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report herein marked
"Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
for the Twenty-fourth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's
representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof
and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material ;
(d) File with the Regional Director for the Twenty-fourth Region, on or before
ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, a report
in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which the Respondent
has complied with the foregoing recommendations.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of the Intermediate Report the Respondent notifies said Regional Director
in writing that it has complied with the foregoing recommendations, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondent to take
the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 203.39 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, Series 4, effective September 11, 1946, any party or
Counsel for the Board may, within fifteen (15) days from the date of service
of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.38 of
said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Wash-
ington 25, D. C , an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting
forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the
record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he
relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support
thereof; and any party or counsel for the Board may, within the same period,
file an original and four copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report.
Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the
party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon
each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director. Proof
of service on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly
made as required by Section 203.65. As further provided in said Section 203 39,
should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request
966 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the
date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board.
J. J. FITZPATRICK,
Trial Examiner.
Dated April 11, 1947.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in UNION DE EMPLEADOS DE MUELLES
DE PUERTO RICO (CIO-CGT), or any other labor organization of our em-
ployees, by discharging or refusing to reemploy or reinstate any of our
employees, or by discriminating in any other manner with respect to their
hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT engage in any other acts in any manner interfering with the
efforts of our employees to designate a new bargaining representative to
succeed an existing bargaining representative upon the termination of the
latter's contract.
WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice
to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make
them whole for any loss of pay suffered as the result of the discrimination.
Monserrate Prado
Manolo Cordero
Felix Davila
FAJARDO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,
Employer.
By -------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated ------------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.