I. L. A. District Council No. 1

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 30, 1953

103 N.L.R.B. 1217 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

LOCAL 1664 , ( DOCK DIVISION) 1217
temperature control men, and gluten feed and grain dryers, l but
excluding operating engineers , bottleshop oilers, machinists' helpers,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
However, we shall make no final unit determinations respecting
these employees at this time, but shall establish them in separate voting
groups to determine their desires in the elections hereinafter directed.
If a majority of the employees in voting groups D and E vote for
Brewery Workers, CIO, and its Local 246 and for Local 367 of the
Teamsters, AFL, respectively, they will be taken to have indicated
their desires to be represented in separate bargaining units which the
Board, under such circumstances, finds appropriate. If, on the other
hand, a majority of the employees in voting group D votes for Local
367 of the Teamsters, AFL, they will be taken to have indicated their
desire to be included in a single bargaining unit with the employees
in voting group E, and, in the further event that a majority of the
employees in voting group E vote for Local 367 of the Teamsters, AFL,
the Board, under such circumstances, finds appropriate a single unit
which includes the employees in voting groups D and E.
Order
IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the petition in Case No. 14-RC-1988 be,
and the same hereby is, dismissed.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
21 We include in the unit the grain and gluten feed dryers , classified as oilers, who
operate grain dryers in powerhouse areas at Anheuser. No other labor organization seeks
to represent them.
LOCAL 1664, (DOCK DIvIsIoN) I. L. A . DISTRICT COUNCIL No. 1 AND
LOCAL 1664 (GENERAL LONGSHOREMEN DIVISION), I. L. A. DISTRICT
COUNCIL No. 1 and ANTONIO ANGLERO ALERs
LocAL 1762 AFFILIATED WITH ILA DISTRICT COUNCIL OF P. R. (ILA-
AFL) AND ILA DISTRICT COUNCIL OF P. R. (ILA-AFL) and FER-
MIN GARCIA
LOCAL 1664 (I. L. A.) AND LOCAL 1742 (I. L. A.) NOW ]KNOWN AS
LOCAL 1782 (I. L. A.) AND INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S Asso-
CIATION DISTRICT COUNCIL OF PORTS OF PUERTO RICO and ALEJANDRO
QUIRINDONGO RODRIQUEZ
ILA LOCAL 1584 (G. GONZALEZ PENA, PRESIDENT), AND ILA DISTRICT
COUNCIL OF P. R. (ILA-AFL and DIONISIO SANTANA DIAz
103 NLRB No. 112.
1218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ILA LOCAL 1584 ( GILBERTO GONZALEZ PENA, PRESIDENT ), AND ILA.
DISTRICT COUNCIL OF PUERTO Rico (ILA-AFL) and BENITO ORTIz
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION DISTRICT COUNCIL OF
PORTS OF PUERTO RICO AND ITS AFFILIATED LOCALS and UNION DE
TRABAJADORES DE ABORDO Y MUELLE DE PONCE (IND. )
ILA LOCAL 1585 ( VINCENTE CASTILLO, PRESIDENT ) AND ILA DISTRICT
COUNCIL OF P . R . (ILA-AFL) and JUAN MARIA PIZZINI
SOUTH PORTO RICO SUGAR Co. and FERMIN GARCIA
BULL. INSULAR LINE , INC. and FERMIN GARCIA
BULL INSULAR LINE , INC. and BENITO ORTIZ
BULL INSULAR LINE, INC. and DIONIslo SANTANA DIAZ
PORTO RICO STEAMSHIP ASSOCIATION, ET AL. and UNION DE TRABAJA-
DORES DE ABORDO Y MUELLE DE PONCE (IND.)
BULL INSULAR LINE, INC. & WATERMAN DOCK Co. and JUAN MARIA
PIZZINI
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION , DISTRICT COUNCIL OF
PORTS OF PUERTO RICO , AND ITS AFFILIATED LOCALS 1575, 1584, 1585,
1674, 1675, 1677, 1682, 1717, 1727, 1740, 1743, 1744, 1746, 1762, AND
1782; AND THEIR AGENT EUSEBIO G. MORENO and PUERTO Rico
STEAMSHIP ASSOCIATION . Cases Nos. 24-CB-13, 24-CB-14, 24-CB-
16, 24-CB-24, 24-CB-25, 24-CB-31, 24-CB-39, 04-CB-110,
24-CA-111, 24-CA-182, 24-CA-191, 24-CA-222,04-CA-251, and
,24-CB-40. March 30,1953
Decision and Order
On October 7, 1952, Trial Examiner J. J. Fitzpatrick issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled consolidated proceeding,
finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in
certain unfair labor practices in violation of the Act, and recommend-
ing that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent Puerto Rico Steamship Associa-
tion filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report; the Respondent
Unions filed exceptions and a supporting brief.'
The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and
finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
1 The Respondent Association and the Respondent Unions also requested oral argument.
In our opinion the record, exceptions , and brief fully present the issues and position of
the parties. Accordingly, these requests are denied
2 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 -member panel [ Chairman Herzog and
Members Houston and Murdock].
LOCAL 1664, (DOCK DIVISION) 1219
affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the
exceptions, the brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner.3 However, we expressly reserve the right to modify the
back-pay and reinstatement provisions if made necessary by circum-
stances not now apparent.
Order
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that :
1. Puerto Rico Steamship Association and its member companies,
Bull Insular Line, Inc., Waterman Dock Company, Inc., San Juan
Trading Company, Inc., Lykes Line Agency, Inc., Pope & Talbot
Lines, San Juan Mercantile Corporation, Fred Imbert, Inc., Puerto
Rico Dry Dock and Marine Terminals, Inc., Behn Brothers, Inc., The
Porto Rico Coal Company, Porto Rico Lighterage Company and Men-
dez & Co., and South Puerto Rico Sugar Company, their officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
a. Cease and desist from :
(1) Encouraging membership in the ILA, or any other labor organ-
ization of their employees, by discriminating in respect to the hire or
tenure of employment or any terms or conditions of employment of any
employees, including applicants for employment, except to the extent
authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(2) Performing or giving effect to the 1950-1951 contracts with
ILA, or to any modifications, extensions, supplements, or renewals
thereof, or to any practices resulting therefrom which require as a
term or condition of employment membership in the ILA or any of its
locals, except as permitted by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(3) Cease giving effect to the 1952 contract between the Association
and the ILA, and any new contract that may be entered into between
the South Puerto Rico Sugar Company and the ILA, or any modifica-
tions, extensions, supplements, or renewals thereof, insofar as said
8 The Respondent Unions except to the Trial Examiner 's recommendation that they be
required to notify the Respondent Employers that they have no objections to the employ-
ment of employees similarly situated to those named in Appendix A and Appendix B of
the Intermediate Report. The Respondent Association excepts to the Trial Examiner's
failure to find that the Respondent Unions are primarily responsible to make whole the
employees named in Appendix A and Appendix B of the Intermediate Report. We find
no merit in these exceptions . The arguments advanced by the unions are answered in our
decision in United Shoe Machinerfj Corporation , Inc., 96 NLRB 1309. The arguments
advanced by the Association are rejected for the reasons set out in H. M. Newman, 85
NLRB 725.
In the absence of exceptions to the failure of the Trial Examiner to apply the Julius
Resnick remedy ( 86 NLRB 38 ) despite the finding of a violation of Section 8 (a) (2), we
adopt that portion of the Intermediate Report without comment . Chairman Herzog
adheres to his reservations about the broad use of that remedy . ( See the dissenting opin-
ion in Strauss Stores Corporation, 94 NLRB 440.)
1220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
contracts, or any practices resulting therefrom, require illegal union-
security provisions or other illegal practices.
(4) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
b. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(1) South Puerto Rico Sugar Company to offer to the employees
listed on Appendix A of the Intermediate Report and any other em-
ployee similarly situated, in the manner set forth in the section of the
Intermediate Report entitled, "The Remedy," employment in positions
substantially equivalent to those discriminatorily denied them, by
placing their names on its employment lists, and hiring them in rota-
tion without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges.
The South Puerto Rico Steamship Association and its members to
offer to the employees listed on Appendix B of the Intermediate Re-
port and all other employees similarly situated, in the manner set
forth in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy,"
employment in positions substantially equivalent to those discrimina-
torily denied them, by placing their names on their employment lists
and hiring them in rotation, without prejudice to their seniority or
other rights and privileges.
(2) Respondent South Puerto Rico Sugar Company to post at its
office and place of business in Ensenada, Puerto Rico, copies of the
notice attached to the Intermediate Report marked "Appendix C."
Respondent South Puerto Rico Steamship Association and its listed
members to post at their offices and places of business in Ponce,
Ensenada, Mayaguez, and Humacao, Puerto Rico, copies of the notice
attached to the Intermediate Report and marked "Appendix D." s
Copies of said notices, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Twenty-fourth Region, shall, after being duly signed by South Puerto
Rico Sugar Company's representative, or by the representatives of the
South Puerto Rico Steamship Association and its named members, as
the case may be, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof and main-
tained for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places
in such ports, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
* This notice, however, shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking from the first
paragraph thereof the words "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 United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words
"Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
" Appendix D is amended in the same manner prescribed for Appendix C in footnote 4,
supra.
LOCAL 1664, (DOCK DIVISION ) 1221
(3) Respondent South Puerto Rico Sugar Company and Respon-
dent South Puerto Rico Steamship Association, and its members, to
notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-fourth Region, in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps they
have taken to comply herewith.
2. International Longshoremen's Association, District Council of
Ports of Puerto Rico, for itself and all its locals, their officers, agents,
representatives, and successors, and Eusebio G. Moreno, shall :
a. Cease and desist from :
(1) Refusing to bargain collectively with the South Puerto Rico
Steamship Association on behalf of the employees of its members
in the unit found to be appropriate in the Intermediate Report, so
long as it is the representative of such employees, by requiring the exe-
cution of any collective-bargaining contract which expressly, or in
its performance, makes membership in the ILA or any of its locals a
condition of employment, except in accordance with the provisions of
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(2) Directing, instigating, or encouraging employees to engage in
a strike, or approving or ratifying strike action taken by employees,
for the purpose of requiring that the South Puerto Rico Steamship
Association or any of its members execute a contract which expressly,
or in its performance, makes membership in the ILA a condition of
employment, except in accordance with the provisions of Section 8
(a) (3) of the Act.
(3) Performing or giving effect to the 1950-51 contracts with the
Respondent Employers, or to any modifications, extensions, supple-
ments, or renewals thereof, or to any practices resulting therefrom,
which require as a term or condition of employment membership in
the ILA or any of its locals, except as permitted under the provisions
of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(4) Giving effect to the 1952 contract with the South Puerto Rico
Steamship Association or executing any new contract with the South
Puerto Rico Sugar Company, or any modifications, extensions, sup-
plements, or renewals thereof, insofar as said contracts apply to an
illegal union-security provision for their execution.
(5) Causing or attempting to cause the Respondent Employers
herein, or any of them, to discriminate in any manner against their
respective employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(6) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees of the
Respondent Employers, or any other employees engaged in longshore-
man work in Puerto Rico, in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
b. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
257965--54-vol. 103-78
1222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(1) Upon request bargain collectively with the South Puerto Rico
Steamship Association in the unit found to be appropriate in the
Intermediate Report.
(2) Post in conspicuous places at its halls or other places of busi-
ness, where notices to members or locals are customarily posted, in
Ponce, Ensenada, Mayaguez, Humacao, and San Juan, copies of the
notice attached to the Intermediate Report marked "Appendix E." 6
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
the Twenty-fourth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the ILA
representatives, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof and main-
tained for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the ILA to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(3) Mail to the Regional Director for the Twenty-fourth Region
signed copies of the above notice, for posting, the South Puerto Rico
Steamship Association and its members willing, at their respective
places of business in the various ports above enumerated in places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
(4) Notify the Regional Director in writing within ten (10) days
from the date of this Order what steps have been taken to comply
herewith.
3. International Longshoremen's Association, District Council of
Ports of Puerto Rico and its affiliate Locals 1782, 15847 1585, and 1762,
their officers, representatives, and agents, shall:
a. Cease and desist from :
(1) Causing or attempting to cause the Respondent Employers, or
any of them, to discriminate in any manner against their respective
employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(2) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees of the
Respondent Employers, or other employees similarly situated, in the
exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
b. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(1) ILA and Local 1762 notify South Puerto Rico Sugar Company
in writing, and furnish copies to the employees listed in Appendix
A of the Intermediate Report, that there is no objection to the employ-
ment of said workers or other workers similarly situated. ILA and
Locals 1782,1584,1585, and 1762 notify the South Puerto Rico Steam-
ship Association and its members, Bull Insular Line, Inc., and Water-
man Dock Company, Inc., and any other Association members simi-
larly situated, in writing, and furnish copies to the workers listed in
Appendix B of the Intermediate Report, that there is no objection
Appendix E Is amended in the same manner prescribed for Appendix C in footnote {,
supra.
LOCAL 1664 , ( DOCK DIVISION) 1223
to the employment of such workers, or other workers similarly
situated.
(2) ILA and all locals enumerated in the previous paragraph post
in conspicuous places at their various places of business at Ponce, En-
senada, Mayaguez, and Humacao, copies of the notice attached to the
Intermediate Report marked "Appendix F," 7 in the manner hereto-
fore set forth for posting of Appendix E of the Intermediate Report.
(3) Mail to the Regional Director signed copies of Appendix F,
for posting, the South Puerto Rico Steamship Association and its
members and the South Puerto Rico Sugar Company willing, at their
respective places of business in said ports in places where notices to
employees are customarily posted.
(4) Notify the Regional Director in writing within ten (10) days
from the date of this Order what steps have been taken to comply
herewith.
4. ILA Local 1762 and the South Puerto Rico Sugar Company, in-
sofar as the employees listed on Appendix A of the Intermediate
Report are concerned, and the ILA and Locals 1782, 1584, 1585, and
1762, and the South Puerto Rico Steamship Association and its said
members, insofar as the employees listed on Appendix B of the Inter-
mediate Report are concerned, shall jointly and severally make whole
such employees for any loss of pay they may have suffered because
of the discrimination against them, in the manner provided in the
section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy." Liability
for further loss of pay shall terminate against the ILA or its locals
5 days after written notice to the employees that the Union has no
objection to the employment of such workers.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the consolidated complaint herein be,
and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges : (1) That the Re-
spondents herein (except South Puerto Rico Sugar Company) have
discriminated as to the hire and tenure of employment of Cayetano
Busquets, Jose Caraballo, Leonides Feliciano, Ramon Catala, Efrain
Rivera, Francisco Ramirez, Rufino Rosaly, Juan S. Sanchez, Ramades
Vega, Juan Tull Baez, and Jose Velazquez Madera (all of Ponce) ; and
(2) that the ILA or any of its locals have restrained and coerced
South Puerto Rico Sugar Company employees, or employees of mem-
ber companies of the South Puerto Rico Steamship Association, by
(a) threatening to inflict bodily injury on any of said employees, and
(b) threatening employees with reprisals if they failed to check off
authorization cards or join an ILA local, in furtherance of illegal
objectives.
' Appendix F Is amended in the same manner prescribed for Appendix C in footnote 4,
supra.
1224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon various charges duly filed, a consolidated complaint was issued dated
December 19, 1951, against International Longshoremen's Association, District
Council of Ports of Puerto Rico, herein called ILA, and its affiliate Local 1762,
Locals 1664 and 1742 (now known as Local 1782), Locals 1584 and 1585, Local
1664 (dock division and also longshoremen's division), herein collectively called
Respondent Unions ; South Porto Rico Sugar Company, herein called Sugar
Company, and the South Puerto Rico Steamship Association, herein called Asso-
ciation, and its employer-members Bull Insular Line, Inc., Waterman Dock Com-
pany, Inc., San Juan Trading Company, Inc., Lykes Line Agency, Inc., Pope &
Talbot Lines, San Juan Mercantile Corporation, Fred Imbert, Inc., Puerto Rico
Dry Dock and Marine Terminals, Inc., Behn Brothers, Inc., The Porto Rico Coal
Company, Porto Rico Lighterage Company and Mendez & Co., alleging, as
amended, that the ILA and its locals violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and 8 (b)
(2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act; and
that Sugar Company and the Association and its named members violated Sec-
tion 8 (a) (1), (2), and (3) of the Act.
Specifically, the consolidated complaint as amended at the hearing alleges :
(1) That the ILA and Local 1762 thereof, since on or about July 14, 1950, have
caused or attempted to cause Sugar Company, and the ILA and various numbered
locals representing employees of employer-members of the Association, since
October 24, 1950, have caused or attempted to cause the Association and its
members to discriminate against employees and prospective employees by (a)
executing an agreement with Sugar Company, and executing an agreement with
the Association on behalf of its members, requiring as a condition of employment
membership in said labor organizations; (b) requiring the discharge or other
discriminatory treatment by Sugar Company of certain employees,' and by the
Association and its members of certain employees, 2 and other employees similarly
situated, and thereafter compelling Sugar Company and the Association and its
members to refuse to reinstate said employees; and (c) forcing and attempting
to force said employers to assign stevedoring and other like work only to members
of the ILA locals.
(2) That the ILA and Local 1762 restrained and coerced employees of Sugar
Company, and the ILA and its locals restrained and coerced employees of members
of the Association, by (a) threatening employees with reprisals if they failed
to sign checkoff authorization cards or join the ILA, and (b) executing the
written agreements with Sugar Company and the Association above described
which require discrimination or have the effect of inducing the employer to
discriminate in regard to terms or conditions of hire or tenure of employees, or
applicants for employment, by reason of membership or nonmembership in the
above-named Union and its locals.
The complaint also alleges that: (1) Since July 14, 1950, the Sugar Company,
and since October 24, 1950, the Association and its members discriminated in
i Fermin Garcia, Benito Montalvo, Guillermo Melendez Baez, Jesus Maria Aviles, Antonio
Torres, William Vargas, Luis Velez Quionones, Emiliano Vargas Sepulveda, Manuel
Vargas Sepulveda I, and Manuel Vargas Sepulveda II.
2 Antonio Anglero Alers, Cayetano Busquets, Samuel Bermudez, Jose Caraballo, Leonides
Feliciano, Ramon Catala, Alejandro Quirindongo, Efrain Rivera, Francisco Ramirez,
Rufino Rosaly, Juan S. Sanchez, Juan Tull Baez, Jose Velazquez Madera, Ramades Vega,
Alfredo Arroyo, Agostin Anabitate Colon, Pedro Rosas, and Antonio Mendez Gorbea (all
of Ponce, Puerto Rico) ; Juan Maria Pizzini (of Mayaguez, Puerto Rico) ; Dionisio Santana
Diaz and Benito Ortiz (of Humacao, Puerto Rico) ; and the employees at Ensenada, Puerto
Rico, listed in the previous footnote.
LOCAL 1664, (DOCK DIVISION) 1225
regard to the hire or tenure of employment or the terms or conditions of employ-
ment of the listed employees to encourage membership in Respondent Union
while said Employers, and each of them, had reasonable grounds for believing
that membership in said Unions was not available to said employees on the same
terms and conditions generally applicable to other members, and membership
therein was denied or terminated for reasons other than the failure of said em-
ployees to tender their periodic dues and initiation fees uniformly required as a
condition of acquiring or retaining membership ; and (2 ) by executing an illegal
union-security contract the Sugar Company dominated and interfered in the
formation and administration of ILA and Local 1762, and the Steamship Associa-
tion and its various members have dominated and interfered in the formation
and administration in the ILA and its locals, by contributing financial and other
support to said labor organizations and by the execution of said illegal union-
security agreements.
The answer of the Sugar Company admits the execution on July 14, 1950, of a
contract which requires membership in the ILA as a condition of employment
but denies all other allegations of unfair labor practices. The Association's
answer ' admits the execution on October 24, 1950, of a contract containing
union-security, or hiring-hall provision, but alleges that this provision was
inserted in the contract at the insistence of the ILA following a precedent in
hiring practices established in 1949 as the result of a strike settlement. The
answer further alleges that when negotiations for a new contract began in the
fall of 1950, the Association sought to eliminate the provision and that the ILA
called a strike against the steamship companies. The ILA, answering on behalf
of itself and the locals referred to in the complaint, denied all allegations of
unfair labor practices.
Upon a charge filed on December 27, 1951, on behalf of the Association, and
an amended charge filed February 2, 1952, a complaint was issued dated Feb-
ruary 5, 1952, against the ILA and all locals, and Eusebio G. Moreno, their agent,
alleging that said Respondents, since October 25, 1951, had (a) refused to bar-
gain in good faith in an appropriate unit with the Association by insisting on
including an illegal union-security and preferential hiring-hall provision, and a
clause requiring the payment of retroactive wages directly to the Respondents
instead of to the employees affected, and on January 20, 1952, called a strike to
force the inclusion of the above provisions in the contract then being negotiated;
and (b ) caused or attempted to cause the Association and its members to dis-
criminate against their employees, or prospective employees, by demanding the
inclusion in the contract of the illegal union-security clause. The answer of the
ILA denied the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice a hearing on the consolidated cases was held at various
dates from March 20, 1952, to April 29, 1952, at Ponce, Ensenada, Mayaguez,
Humacao, and Santurce, Puerto Rico, and New York City, New York, before the
undersigned Trial Examiner 4 All parties were represented by counsel ( except
-Complainants Alers and Colon who represented themselves) and afforded full
opportunity to be beard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to intro-
duce evidence bearing on the issues. Testimony was taken first on the consoli-
dated complaint at Ponce, Mayaguez, Ensenada, and Humacao, Puerto Rico.
8 The answer was for the Association , Bull Insular Line, Waterman Dock and three other
companies ( later stricken from the complaint by agreement ). The other companies named
in the complaint as members of the Association made no answer to the complaint.
' The hearing originally opened at Ponce on January 22, 1952 , before Trial Examiner
Horace Ruckel and was adjourned to January 28. At the latter date another adjournment
was granted to March 20 , 1952, at which time Mr. Ruckel was not available to conduct
the hearing.
1226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Then evidence was received on the refusal-to-bargain complaint against the ILA
at Santurce, part of San Juan, Puerto Rico, and New York City. When the
refusal-to-bargain case was called, the representatives of the ILA withdrew from
the hearing after the Association's request for leave to withdraw the charges
and to dismiss the complaint, resisted by the General Counsel, had been denied ;
and after the denial also of the ILA's motion for reconsideration. It was the
Respondent Union's position that, subsequent to the filing of the charges of
refusal to bargain against it, the Association and the ILA had executed, and were
operating under, a contract containing no illegal provisions, the issues in 24-CB-
40 were moot, and the only effect of prosecuting the refusal-to-bargain complaint
against the ILA would be to recreate industrial unrest in the Island. The ILA
thereafter took no part in the refusal-to-bargain hearing. At the conclusion of
all the hearings, the parties waived oral argument but were granted an opportun-
ity to file briefs. Briefs have been received from the General Counsel and the
ILA.
Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make
the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE OPERATIONS OF THE VARIOUS COMPANIES INVOLVED
The Puerto Rico Steamship Association, herein called Association , is a non-
profit organization comprising steamship companies , wharfingers , and other em-
ployers engaged in shipping and related operations in Puerto Rico . Included
among its members are Bull Insular Line, Inc., Waterman Dock Company, Inc.,
San Juan Trading Company , Inc., Lykes Line Agency, Inc., Pope & Talbot
Lines, San Juan Merchantile Corporation , Fred Imbert , Inc., Puerto Rico Dry
Dock and Marine Terminals , Inc., Behn Brothers , Inc., The Porto Rico Coal
Company, and Porto Rico Lighterage Company and Mendez & Co g These com-
panies operate piers or docks and other shipping facilities throughout the various
ports of Puerto Rico at which cargo shipped to the Island is unloaded from the
steamships transporting said cargo , and cargo being shipped from the Island is
loaded into said ships. The total value of the cargo shipped by said companies
from Puerto Rico to the United States and foreign countries for the 12 months'
period immediately preceding the opening of the hearing was approximately
$337,000 ,000. For the same 12 months ' period the total value of such cargo
transported from the United States and foreign countries to Puerto Rico was
in excess of $200 ,000,000. The Association bargains with labor organizations
on behalf of such of its members who authorize it to act as their collective bar-
gaining representative.
The South Porto Rico Sugar Company is a Puerto Rican Corporation engaged
in the manufacture of raw and refined sugar in its plant at Ensenada, Puerto
Rico. During the 12 months immediately preceding the commencement of the
hearing , it ground approximately 869 tons of sugar cane valued at about $11,-
000,000 , of which around 85 percent was sold and shipped from Puerto Rico to
continental United States. During the same period , the Company purchased
equipment , materials , and supplies used in the manufacture of sugar valued at
approximately $250,000, all of which were shipped to Puerto Rico from con-
tinental United States.
5 All the companies above named have been incorporated in Puerto Rico with the excep-
tion of Bull Insular Line, Inc., Incorporated in New York , Lykes Line Agency, Inc., incor-
porated in Louisiana , and Behn Brothers , Inc , incorporated in Delaware.
LOCAL 1664, (DOCK DIVISION) 1227
As alleged in the complaint , admitted in the answers , and stipulated at the
hearing, I find that all the above-named companies are engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act. I further find, contrary to the contentions of
the Association, that the Association also is an employer within the meaning
of the Act. The Board has consistently held that such an organization, repre-
senting members engaged in interstate commerce for the purposes of collective
bargaining, is itself an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Longshoremen's Association, District Council of Ports of Puerto
Rico, and its affiliate locals 1575, 1782, 1585, 1584, 1675, 1682, 1762, 1674, 1717,
1727, 1740; 1664 and 1742 (now known as Local 1782), 1743, 1744, and 1746,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor ; and the Union de Trabajadores
de Abordo y Muelle de-Ponce, an independent union, are each labor organizations
admitting to membership employees of the various Respondent Companies
herein.
M. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Preliminary statement and background
Prior to 1951 stevedores, ashore and aboard in the various ports of Puerto Rico,
were represented by either District Council No. 1 or District Council No. 2 of the
ILA. Nevertheless, since 1948, negotiations between the Association on behalf
of its members and the two district councils have been carried on jointly. On
October 24, 1950, the Association executed separate contracts covering steve-
dores represented by Councils No. 1 and No. 2, both effective from January 1,
1950, until December 31, 1951. Both contracts are substantially identical in
terms with the exception of the category of employees covered.
On March 12,1951, while these contracts were in effect, the Association and ILA
executed a stipulation recognizing the merging of District Councils No. 1 and
No. 2 on November 12, 1950, to form International Longshoremen's Association,
District Council of the Ports of Puerto Rico, affiliated with the International
Longshoremen's Association. Thereafter, beginning about the first of December
1951, the Association and the ILA started negotiations for a new contract dur-
ing the course of which the ILA called a strike which lasted for several weeks.
On March 6, 1952, these parties executed a new collective-bargaining agreement
extending the terms of the October 24, 1950, contracts to December 31, 1952, with
certain modifications. The 1950 contracts above referred to covered operations
in Ensenada where Sugar Company has its plant, as well as other ports herein
referred to. The Sugar Company had a separate collective-bargaining agreement
executed July 14, 1950, also running from January 1, 1950, to December 31, 1951,
but has no current contract.
The union-shop provisions in the two 1950 Association contracts read as follows :
A. It shall be a requisite for employment of all the workers mentioned
in Article I of this agreement at present employed by the Companies and
those which they may employ in the future be bonafide members of the
Union.
B. The Companies shall only employ workers who are in possession of
their identification cards as members of the Union corresponding to the
month or current quarter, provided that the inspector of the Union who
may find a worker without such a notification card shall notify the fore-
@Retail Merchants Association, etc., 83 NLRB 112; Association of Motion Picture Pro-
ducers, 79 NLRB 466.
1228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
man, who shall be obligated to withdraw the man from the work and substi-
tute him for a member of the Union.
C. The Union obliges to supply all the workers mentioned in Article I
of this agreement that may be requested by the Companies to carry out the
shifts (regular and extraordinary) of work established in Article III-B
and for the other works mentioned in Article I not subject to shifts, and
the Companies are obliged to notify the Union with sufficient time in ad-
vance, which shall not be less than three hours in all the ports as to the
number of workers to be supplied for the shift from 7: 00 A. M. to 4: 00
P. M. and if the work shall continue after 4 P. M. and/or 12 M. N., the
Companies shall notify the Union on or before 12: 00 M. D. and the per-
sonnel to continue the operations shall be called at 3: 00 P. M. and 4: 30
P. M. respectively. Further, it is agreed that the Companies shall announce
in the Bulletin Board in the docks the hour in which the work shall com-
mence as well as the arrival of the vessel.
D. In all the ports of the Island (except in the port of San Juan) the
workers to be employed by the Companies shall be prepared by both parties
within the term of 30 days from the date in which this agreement is signed.
From this list the Companies and the Union shall call the personnel. The
parties oblige themselves to strictly comply the rotating shift in the employ-
ment of the personnel.
In case that the list does not contain sufficient men to comply with the
agreement contracted herewith by the Union, the Union obliges to obtain
the necessary additional personnel.
E. In case that the Union can not supply all the workers requested by the
companies one hour before commencing the work during the corresponding
shift, the companies may employ any other workers notifying the Union
and the workers so employed shall finish the shift of work for which they
were employed provided that this provision is not applicable to the working
shift at 7: 00 A. M.
F. It is hereby established that the Companies and the Union, in the
application of the preceding paragraph of this Article shall comply with
the statutes applicable to labor relations. Any final determination which
may affect the validity of this article shall not annul the contract in any
other of its provisions provided that in such case it is agreed that this
article or that part of same that may be void shall be substituted by the
corresponding article of the previous agreement as it was amended by the
stipulation signed by the parties on August 10, 1948 which in its original
text provides the following :
Membership in the union shall be a condition of employment on and
after the 30th day following the beginning of such employment, provided
the employer has no reasonable grounds for believing, (1), that such
membership was not available to the employee on the same terms and
conditions generally applicable to other members, and (2) that mem-
bership in the union was not denied or terminated for reasons other
than the failure of employee to tender the periodic dues and initiation
fees uniformly required as a condition for acquiring or retaining mem-
bership in the union.
This substitute clause shall apply taking in consideration the principle of
seniority, provided that for the purpose of seniority, seniors are all the
workers that at the time of the signing of this agreement appear as employees
of the Companies, and temporary employees those employed after its signing.
LOCAL 1664, (DOCK DIVISION) 1229
The 1950 contract with the Sugar Company contained union-shop provisions in
substantially the same language as that above cited.
The allegations of assistance , discrimination , coercion , and interference in
the consolidated complaint are grounded in part on the execution of the above
contracts containing these union-security provisions , alleged to be illegal, and
their enforcement . The separate refusal -to-bargain complaint against the ILA
and its locals, and Eusebio G. Moreno as their agent , does not involve the Sugar
Company. The consolidated complaint , as previously noted , was tried first, with
hearings at Ponce, Ensenada , Mayaguez , and Humacao , in that order, as a
matter of convenience . The refusal -to-bargain complaint against ILA then fol-
lowed at San Juan, ending in New York City. This Intermediate Report will
also deal with the complaints in the same order.
B. Assistance, discrimination, interference, and coercion
1. At Ponce
Prior to April 1950 the dock at Ponce was municipally operated, and all workers
ashore were recruited by the Municipal Dock Administration from a rotation
list it had made up containing about 1,400 names. Stevedores and others who
worked aboard ships, however, were supplied to the various shipping companies
as requested by Locals 1664 and 1742 by virtue of the contracts with the Asso-
ciation and the two then existing district councils heretofore described. On
April 30, 1950, the city of Ponce turned over the operation of the dock also to
the steamship companies, and from that time until the following October, all
those who worked on the dock (ashore) were selected from the old Municipal
Dock Administration list which had been turned over to the two ILA locals.
Similarly, those who worked aboard continued to be drawn from the old lists
of Locals 1664 and 1742.
During the above period, plans were formulated to assimilate all the dock-
workers in the two locals. On October 24, 1950, when contracts with the Asso-
ciation and the two locals (through the two then existing district councils) were
renewed, the unit was enlarged so that it included stevedores and others working
ashore, as well as those who worked aboard ship. Local 1664 agreed to absorb
65 percent of the dockworkers and Local 1742 agreed to enroll the remaining
35 percent. Within these limits, it was discretionary with each dockworker as
to which local he would join, but he had to join one or the other if he wanted
to work. Those on the dock list were not required to pay any initiation fee
to join either local.
In conformity with this arrangement each local made a new enlarged list
of workers consisting of its old members and the dockworkers who had applied
for membership. The two lists so compiled were used exclusively thereafter
to supply the steamship companies with the requested number of workers to
carry out operations ashore and aboard. Thus, any dockworker who had failed
to enroll with one or the other local thereafter received no work, as his name was
not on either list'
The above-described hiring lists were kept separate until June 1951 when
Locals 1664 and 1742 amalgamated to form Local 1782 (following the merger
T About 1942, the municipal dockworkers were organized in Union de Trabajadores de
Muelles y Malecon , but by 1946 this union had split into two factions , one headed by
Jesus Pacheco and the other by complainant Antonio Anglero. The Pacheco faction later
won an election ordered by the Insular Labor Relations Board , but by that time the munici-
pality had turned over the operation of the docks to the steamship companies.
1230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the two district councils heretofore described), when the 2 lists were merged
into 1 list covering work ashore and aboard.
It is alleged in the consolidated complaint as amended and denied in the
answers of the Association and the ILA, that as a result of the agreements
between the Association on behalf of its members and the ILA on behalf of its
locals, and the hiring practices above described, 16 workers at Ponce were
discriminated against as to their hire and tenure of employment. Of these
named complainants only 7 testified at the hearing or were discussed in the
General Counsel's brief. The facts involving each of these 7 workers follow.
Antonio Anglero Alers, a stevedore, organized a dockworkers' union in 1942
or 1943 (Union de Muelles y Malecones, herein called UDEM), acted as its presi-
dent for awhile, and later led the faction thereof that eventually lost the In-
sular Board election in 1948, heretofore referred to. After the transfer of the
docks to the shipping companies at the end of April 1950, he and another mem-
ber protested to Eusebio G. Moreno and Ramon Mejias, president and vice presi-
dent, respectively, of ILA, that Efrain Puente, at that time president of the
UDEM, had not called any meeting of that union to determine the method of
dissolving it and disposing of its funds. Moreno assured Alers that the prob-
lem would be solved in a short time when new collective bargaining contracts
were executed. Shortly after this episode the amalgamation plan, heretofore
described, was announced whereby the members of UDEM were to be absorbed
by Locals 1664 and 1742; and Alers and other dockworkers were told by Mejias
(at that time also president of Local 1742) that it would be necessary for all
the members of UDEM to join either 1664 or 1742 or "they would not have any
right to work." Alers refused to join either local and, as his name appeared on
neither list, he received no work thereafter in Ponce.
It is the contention of the ILA that Alers' claim of discrimination should be
dismissed because the charge (Case No. 24-CB-13) on which it is founded (the
first charge filed) was filed on October 27, 1950, and as the record shows that
he did no work on the dock after 1948 and only worked aboard ship on a few oc-
casions within a period of 5 or 6 months after 1948, his claim is barred by the
limitation in Section 10 (b) of the Act. It is quite true that the record dis-
closes that Alers did no work as a stevedore either at the dock or aboard ship
in Ponce after the beginning of the year 1950, and very little dock work the
year before. A large portion of his time in 1949 was devoted to union cam-
paigning , and in 1950 in solving problems confronting the UDEM and resisting
efforts to absorb that union (without formal approval of its membership) into
1664 and 1742. It is not a question, therefore, as to how much stevedoring work
Alers actually did in 1950, or prior thereto, but whether, as a result of the ac-
tion of the ILA in the summer of 1950, and its contract in October of that year
with the Association on behalf of the steamship companies, he was denied the
right to work as a stevedore. Furthermore, the record shows without dispute
that in 1951 Alers worked 7 or 8 shifts as a checker and 1 shift as a stevedore
in San Juan . As Alers lived in Ponce it is a reasonable inference, herein found,
that he took this work in San Juan because he was unable to secure similar
employment in Ponce, his home. The above contention of the ILA is there-
fore rejected.
Pedro Rosas had been active in the dockworkers' union at the time when the
dock was municipally operated. He was on the list of stevedores that worked
on the dock, but also did some work aboard ship. In 1950 when the dockwork-
ers were absorbed in the two ILA locals he joined 1742. At the time Locals
1664 and 1742 merged into Local 1782, in June 1951, he and others actively op-
posed the method of consolidation and started securing applicants for an inde-
LOCAL 1664, (DOCK DIVISION) 1231
Pendent union , Union de Trabajadores de Abordo y Muelle.° On August 17,
while this was going on, a notice appeared on the ILA official blackboard bulle-
tin of Local 1742 over the name of Rosario Santos Medina, then president of
that local and later vice president of 1784, reading as follows :
Any fellow worker who is signing petitions for elections for independent
unions will automatically be out of the Union
After the dockworkers had been taken over Rosas continued on the list of
workers on the dock and also continued to do some work aboard. August 18 it
was his turn to work aboard, but as he was going to San Juan, he requested
another worker to take his place. On his return that night Rosas found that his
name had not been called. The same evening at the union hall, during a dis-
cussion with Ramon Mejias (former president of 1664 but by that time presi-
dent of 1782) over Mejias' authority relative to the members, the president
told Rosas he "would be the first one to be fired from the union." About the
next day Rosas received two letters dated August 18 on stationery signed by
Mejias and other officers of Local 1782. One letter criticized Rosas for his
activity as president of an independent union while claiming to be a member
of 1782, which latter claim the letter disputed. The other communication
stated :
This is to inform you that in view of the fact that several months have
elapsed since this Union, I. L. A. 1782, formally of I. L. A. 1742, gave you an
opportunity to pay into this Union your initiation fee, and your failure to
do so, in spite of the time elapsed, and the opportunities to work that we
have offered you: YOU CANNOT continue to appear on our list until you
pay up your initiation fee.
If the Companies wish to utilize your services in their operations, they
are at liberty to do so.
P. S. If you wish to make your allegations or to clarify some point, we
are here at your service whenever you want to come down e
Rosas continued to work thereafter regularly until September 20 when his
name was removed from the list of workers by Local 1782. That day he appealed
to Pedro Diaz, Ponce superintendent of the Bull Insular Line on whose ship he
was due to work, stating that his name had not been called although it was his
turn. Diaz replied there was nothing he could do about it, and Rosas had better
straighten the matter out with the Union. September 21 Rosas sent a letter
to all shipping companies doing business at Ponce 18 wherein he disputed the
ILA's claim that he was not a member of 1782, insisted that he was on the list
of that union for workers both ashore and aboard and giving his numbers for
each ; that he had a right to work, and should not be denied that right by the
companies, even though the officers of 1782 claimed he was not a member. The
letter concluded with the statement that if he was denied work by the companies,
he would file charges with the National Labor Relations Board. No answer was
received to this letter from any of the companies nor have any of them offered
8 Hereinafter called UTEM.
9 July 15, Rosas paid the treasurer of Local 1742 $25, the receipt showing it was for
the "initiation fees he owed." Rosas testified that he was "forced" to pay the above
amount because he opposed the consolidation . Alejandro Garcia. Local 1742 treasurer
who signed the receipt , did not testify . The ILA contends the $25 was part payment as a
new member.
10 The letter was sent to the following members of the Association : Bull Insular Line,
Porto Rico Marine Corporation, Waterman Dock Company, Inc, Lykes Line Agency, Inc.,
fred Imbert, Inc., and Pope & Talbot Lines.
1232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Rosas work. His name has not been called from the union list since, although
on several occasions when his turn would normally be due he has appeared at
the dock awaiting the call. On September 28, 1951, Rosas filed his first charge
herein.
Antonio Mendez Gorbea was included in the dissident group above described
that opposed the merging of 1664 and 1742 into 1782 and was elected vice presi-
dent of UTEM, of which Pedro Rosas was president. On October 22, 1951, he,
together with Roses, represented the UTEM at a representation hearing in
Santurce . Among others who attended this hearing was Ramon Mejias, as a
representative of the ILA. Gorbea is 65 years of age and had been a cooper
all of his life, had been on the list of Local 1782 as a cooper, and worked regu-
larly whenever his turn came and a cooper was needed.
On October 25, 1951, the officials of Local 1782 sent to each of the shipping
companies at Ponce the following letter :
Gentlemen :
This is to inform you that fellow worker Antonio Mendez [Gorbea ] should
not be called to work as a Cooper for that Company, as long as this fellow
worker shall be excluded from said list and included in the general list of
the dock workers, where he will appear as Number 1173.
It is also our wish that your office should interpret that this is a purely
administrative matter of the Union, that, s, the placing of its numbers on the
list that we deem convenient. If it is your desire to discuss or clarify
something with regard to this matter, we shall be in the best disposition to
have an interview with you at your convenience.
Hope at the same time that you will have no objection in the matter, for
which we are very grateful, and are pleased to remain, as ever , most respect-
fully,
At 2 o'clock in the morning on October 26, 1951, while Mendez Gorbea was
working his turn on the third shift, Francisco Rivas, assistant dock superin-
tendent for Waterman Dock Company, on whose ship Gorbea was working, told
the latter about the above letter his company had received from the ILA, and
announced that after he had completed his shift, Gorbea could not again be
employed by Waterman as a cooper because his name had been put on the general
list of stevedores. Gorbea replied that he had always been a cooper, and could
not do any other work, particularly that of a stevedore. About November 1
Gorbea went to all the other shipping company representatives asking for work
as a cooper, but was unsuccessful in securing any, except that the Bull Insular
Line gave him some work until November 27, 1951. Since then he has been
unable to obtain any work as a cooper.
Samuel Bermudez had been a stevedore at Ponce for 11 years and was con-
tinued on the list of Local 1742 when the dockworkers were absorbed in the two
ILA locals in October 1950 and was called to work regularly when his turn came.
Thereafter he, with other workers above referred to, opposed the method of
merging 1664 and 1742 into Local 1782. His name did not appear on the revised
1782 list in July 1951. He asked Mejias and also Medina, both officials, why he
was not being called for work. He was told by both of them, according to his
undenied and credited testimony, that "traitors" to the ILA would receive no
more work. Thereafter, for about a month, he appeared at the dock whenever
his turn was due, but his name was not called. During this period he told Pedro
Diaz of the Bull Line of his predicament but was offered no work.
The ILA contends, as it did in the case of Antonio Anglero Alers, discussed
above, that Section 10 (b) forecloses any relief for Bermudez because the charge
LOCAL 1664, (DOCK DIVISION) 1233
on his behalf was not filed until November 29, 1951 (Case No. 24-CB-16), and
there is no record that he worked as a stevedore during either 1950 or 1951.
It was stipulated that the records of Waterman Dock Company, Inc., Lykes
Line Agency, Inc., and Alcoa Steamship Company u disclose that Bermudez did
no stevedoring for any of them in the year 1951, and that the records of Pope &
Talbot Lines and Lykes Line Agency, Inc., show no work by him in 1950. This
stipulation did not cover work done by dockworkers prior to the transfer of the
bock to the steamship companies by the municipality on April 30, 1950, nor does
it include all steamship company members of the Association who operated in and
out of Ponce. Moreover, the first charge of discrimination, which presumably
initiated the Board's investigation herein, was filed on October 27, 1950, by
Antonio Anglero Alers, above discussed. Furthermore, as heretofore indicated,
it is not so much a question whether Bermudez was actually working during the
6 months' period immediately preceding the filing of the charge, but rather,
whether he was unlawfully denied the right to work during that period. I find
that he was denied that right when his name was eliminated from the 1782 list.
Alejandro Quirindongo at the time of the hearing was 65 years of age. For
many years he had worked on the dock at Ponce as a stevedore and after 1945
as a "planchero." 19 When the municipality turned over the docks the end of
April 1950, Quirindongo, together with other workers including Anglero Alers,
heretofore referred to, objected to the method employed in dissolving the old dock
union . Nevertheless, his name continued on the list and he was called to work at
his regular turn from May to October 1950.
Quirindongo did not apply for membership in either Local 1664 or 1742 and,
about October 1, 1950, when his turn came, his name was not called and he was
offered no work thereafter. He asked his brother, Jovino Quirindongo, a mem-
ber of Local 1664, what he should do to get on the list of workers and the latter
told him it would be necessary for him to sign an application to join 1664," but
Alejandro refused to do so.
On January 19, 1951, Alejandro Quirindongo filed a charge with the Board
alleging unfair labor practices by the ILA and its local (Case No. 24-CB-16).
On January 31, following instructions of a Board field examiner, he asked Ramon
Mejias, then president of 1664, what his number was on the list. Mejias replied,
You have charges against us at the Board, against the Union. If you drop
the charges, come back and then I will tell you what number you make on the
list, otherwise wait until after the hearing and then you will know"
I find from the record as a whole and the preponderance of the credible testi-
mony that Alejandro Quirindongo' s name was eliminated from the list of workers
on the dock on or about October 1, 1950, and as a result he has not since been
11 Alcoa Steamship Company is not named in the complaint as one of the members of the
Steamship Association.
12 A "planchero" works on the dock handling a wagon or other vehicle used in unloading
or loading the docked ship.
13 It Is Alejandro's testimony that his brother told him at the time that he could not get
on the list and he should go with his friend , Antonio Anglero Alers. It is clear , however,
from Quirindongo 's own testimony , that he refused to sign an application to join either
1664 or 1742. I therefore credit Jovino's testimony as the more plausible explanation of
what transpired during the conversation.
14 Mejias testified that on the date in question, Quirindongo asked what number he had
on the list, and that he replied he did not know as he did not have the list with him.
Mejias denied that at that time he talked to Quirindongo about the charges that had been
filed or that he asked him to withdraw the charges. I credit Quirindongo 's version which
was corroborated by Reinaldo Hernandez Echevarria , who was present during the conver-
sation , especially as there was no showing that Quirindongo 's name was in fact on the list
after October 1950.
1234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
permitted to work. His name continued off the list of workers when 1664 was
merged with 1742 into Local 1782 in July 1951, and thereafter.
Alfredo Arroyo, a young man, worked occasionally as a stevedore in his
father's place on the rotation list from 1945 to September 1951, except for 2
years spent in the United States Army. On September 19, 1951, Arroyo wrote
to President Mejias of Local 1782 asking for the privilege of taking his brother's
place on the rotation list, as his brother had left for the United States. Upon
receipt of this letter Mejias gave instructions that Arroyo be given the rotation
number held by Pedro Rosas, previously discussed herein.
Thereafter Arroyo worked the regular shift using this rotation number until
the month of December 1951. In that month an islandwide strike or "permanent
session" had been called by the ILA, starting at Ponce. Arroyo was highly
critical of the fact that the strike started at Ponce while the workers in San
Juan were still employed and voiced his criticism to various stevedores and also
at a meeting he called in a local park. He also criticized this method of pro-
cedure to Rosario Santos Medina, vice president of Local 1782. Thereafter, on
December 6, 1951, Arroyo received a letter from the Union canceling his name
from the rotation list for failure to pay the initiation fee."
After the receipt of the above December letter from the Union Arroyo received
no more work as a stevedore.
Agostin Anabitate Colon worked as a stevedore in Ponce since about 1938.
When the dock management was turned over to the steamship companies in the
spring of 1950, he continued to be called for his regular rotation turn on the
list as before until October 29, 1950. At that time he voiced objection to the
method employed of assimilating all the dockworkers in either Local 1664 or
1742, and for 40 days thereafter refused to sign an application to join either
T-nion. During this period he was not on either list and received no work. He
then decided to join 1742. Since then he has worked his regular turn.
2. At Ensenada
The contracts executed in October 1950 between the Association and the
ILA but which ran from January 1, 1950, to December 31, 1951, heretofore
described, covered operations in the ports of Ensenada as well as nearby Guanica.
The only local of the ILA involved is 1762. Sugar Company, which has its
"central" at Ensenada, operated under a separate contract with ILA Local 1762,
executed July 14, 1950, but covering the same period as the Association con-
tracts, as heretofore noted.
There are about 126 members of 1762, including the working foremen, and the
membership has remained fairly constant for a number of years last past. It is
not, however, a closed union as that term is normally understood, because new
members are taken in when vacancies arise due to death, incapacity, or removal
of a member from the Island. However, this membership is not adequate to
supply the stevedoring requirements at Ensenada, especially during the sugar-
grinding season, which annually runs from about January to the following July.
10 Arroyo testified that he was never told what the initiation fee was. He denied receiv-
ing a previous letter in October stating that he was in arrears in the initiation payment,
as testified to by Meiias. I credited Meiias' testimony in this respect. New applicants for
membership in 1782 were required to pay an initiation fee of $75 30, and it is not con-
tended that Arroyo was an old member regularly working carried over on the rolls from
the time when the municipality ran the docks. Furthermore , it seems significant that Arroyo
never attended any union meetings after he made his application in September 1951; and,
when he objected to the December strike, he did not protest at a union meeting, as he pre-
sumably could have done if he was a member , but called a meeting in a park for that
purpose.
LOCAL 1664, (DOCK DIVISION) 1235
As a result of this situation another group of about 40 nonunion stevedores devel-
oped at Ensenada called "suplentes." After the union members are taken care
of these suplentes divide the extra work.
During the period herein material Sugar Company operated some ships of their
own, or ships they controlled, out of Ensenada. It also acted as agent for Bull
Insular Line when the latter company had a ship in port.'' Upon being notified
of the imminent arrival of a ship and the number of gangs needed, the president
of 1762 selected and notified the men needed, from a list in the Union' s possession
which included the union members and the suplentes. These stevedores reported
at a point near the dock. As their names were called they passed the plant guard
and went to the dock and were assigned work, either ashore or aboard the ship
in one of the gangs. Each gang, therefore, consisted of union members and a
few suplentes.
The union members work whatever number of shifts is needed to load the
particular ship, but the suplentes in the gangs are not permitted to work the last
shift. That shift is assigned by the union president to other suplentes on his
list. Thus, if the loading requires members of a gang to work 5 shifts, the union
gang members work the full 5, but the suplentes originally called work only
4 shifts.
The stevedores usually know when their turn to work is due and are present
at the assignment point near the dock. Others, not called and whose turns are
not due, also are on hand hoping extra work may develop. If extras are needed
at the time, they are selected by the union president from the suplentes on hand.
Once on the dock or aboard ship, the stevedores are subject to the supervision
of the foreman. However, if he desires to make a change in a work assignment,
the foreman must first clear it with the president of the Union who is usually
present.
The initiation fee to join Local 1762 for a number of years has been $25, the
monthly dues are $1. Suplentes, regarded as potential union members, are
required to pay 10 percent of their earnings per shift 17 to the Union plus 5 cents
to the ILA District Council.1B
Although, as above noted, some 40 suplentes are in Ensenada , the only ones
specifically mentioned in the complaint or referred to in the testimony are
Fermin Garcia, Benito Montalvo, William Vargas, Guillermo Melendez Baez,
Manuel Vargas Sepulveda I, Manuel Vargas Sepulveda II, Antonio Torres,
Emiliano Vargas Sepulveda, Luis Velez Quinones , and Jesus Maria Aviles. All
of these men worked regularly when their turns were called, but always one
shift less than the union members in the same gangs , provided the particular
ship required the working of more than two shifts by these gangs (as it usually
did). When working, each paid the above percentage of his earnings to the
Union and 5 cents per shift to the ILA District Council, and all of them, with
the exception of Maria Aviles, applied unsuccessfully for membership in 1762,
some of them on more than one occasion.19
16 Apparently Bull Insular Line, Inc., was the only member of the Association operating
out of Ensenada.
17 In the fall of 1951 this 10 percent was reduced to 5 percent of the shift earnings.
16 Union members also pay this 5 cents to the District Council.
19 Antonio Perez, president of 1762, testified that within about a month prior to the
hearing, Manuel Vargas Sepulveda II had been elected to membership in the Union.
Vargas II, admitting that he had applied for membership, denied that he had been accepted.
I do not think it is necessary for me to resolve this conflict. If it is a fact that this
suplente, or any other one, has recently been accepted to full membership in the Union
on the same terms and conditions generally applicable to other members presumably they
will hereafter be treated as regular members. It has no bearing on the treatment afforded
to them as employees, however, prior to their being accepted as members.
1236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As a suplente, Garcia worked on the dock assisting in unloading the sugar
from the ships. On one occasion, in 1950, President Perez transferred him to
work in a hold on board ship, to take the place of a stevedore who was ill. The
hold work was heavier than that which Garcia had been doing, but the pay was
slightly more. Garcia is a small man, weighing about 110 pounds. After sev-
eral shifts in the hold, due to complaints of other workers that he could not keep
up with them, Garcia was transferred back to his regular work by Perez. I find
nothing in this temporary transfer itself to indicate either discrimination or
interference with the rights of Garcia as an employee by either the Sugar Com-
pany (whose ship was being loaded at the time) or the ILA. It does, however,
demonstrate the control over employment exercised by the Union.
In order to be in a position to work all the shifts when his turn came, Garcia
in 1949, applied for admission to the local and paid the $25 initiation fee. About
2 months later, on learning that the local turned down his application because
they were not taking in any new members, Garcia secured a refund of the $25.
In 1950 he applied again with the other suplentes herein discussed, but did not
tender the initiation fee. According to Garcia's credited testimony, President
Perez stated in 1951, when applications for admission to Local 1762 were made
available to suplentes, that Moreno, head of the ILA in the Island, had sent
word to Ensenada that such applicants would have to pay an initiation fee of
$75. The testimony of Luis Velez Quinones is also credited that about the same
time Perez announced that Quinones and other suplentes who had filed charges
against the ILA could be admitted to membership provided the charges were
withdrawn and each paid $75 i°
3. At Mayaguez
The allegations involving the port of Mayaguez are based on charges by Juan
Maria Pizzini against Bull Insular Line, Inc., and Waterman Dock Company;
and ILA and Local 1585. The hiring practices in Mayaguez are similar to those
heretofore described at Ponce and Ensenada. Pizzini has been a winchman
working on the docks at Mayaguez for many years. Prior to 1950 there were
two unions in Mayaguez : Local 1.585 affiliated with District Council No. 1, and
Local 1741 affiliated with District Council No. 2. Late in 1950 or early in 1951,
while Pizzini was president of 1585, and presumably after the two District
Councils had amalgamated into one District Council, as heretofore found, it
was decided to merge the two locals. Objection developed in 1585 to such con-
solidation without an assembly (meeting) of the members, and Pizzini took the
matter up with Moreno and the District Council suggesting, without success,
that a ratifying meeting of the members of 1585 be first held before the consoli-
dation. Notwithstanding this development the locals were merged into one
which has since operated as Local 1585.
Pizzini continued thereafter as president of 1585 until about the first of July
1951, when he was deposed by Moreno and the District Council because of alleged
irregularities in his administration ; and Vice-President Vicente Castillo was
installed in his place. For 2 years prior to his election in 1950 as president of
1585, before the merger above discussed, Pizzini had been acting president of
20 Antonio Perez was not asked about and did not deny the above statements attributed
to him by Garcia. Perez did not recall talking to Quinones in 1951 but testified that "at
no time" did he tell him he could be admitted if he withdrew the charges and paid $75.
In view of the entire record herein, and testimony particularly at the Ponce hearing that
strong pressure had been exerted by top ILA officials to make the initiation fee of all
locals uniform at $75 , and the mutually corroborative testimony of Quinones and Garcia.
I do not credit the partial denial of Perez.
LOCAL 1664, (DOCK DIVISION) 1237
that union due to the absence of the president. During these periods as acting
president, and as president, it was his official duty when a ship was in port to see
that the members of the appropriate gangs needed were notified and available for
work. He received compensation for these duties and the only time he worked
as winchman was to fill in when someone was missing, or an extra man was
needed. As president, he was also excused from paying the $2 monthly dues.
However, on the occasional times when he did work he paid 25 cents to the
Union for each shift, as was customary for union members n
In July 1951, after he had been deposed, Pizzini endeavored to pay his
monthly dues of $2 but was unable to do so. In September he sent a money
order to the Union for $4 to cover his duties for July and August but the money
order was returned to him together with a letter signed by the acting president,
Vicente Castillo, and the treasurer dated October 3, 1951, as follows:
Sir : I hereby return to you your money order for the amount of $4 by order
of the Council which accordingly one does not have to give you work, not
being in the rotation list nor the list of numbers. We therefore cannot accept
money in payment for anything.
Upon receipt of the above letter advising him that he was no longer on the
union list or a member, Pizzini went to the official representatives of the Bull
Insular Line and the Waterman Dock Company and requested that he be given
work as a winchman. In both instances he was told that he would have to secure
work through the Union. Thereafter he secured no work until the spring of
1952, after the shipping companies took over the hiring lists pursuant to the set-
tlement of the strike and the signing of a new contract as heretofore described.
On March 10 of that year he worked a shift for Waterman, and a few days
or weeks before that one shift for Bull, both times over the opposition of tbo
officials of Local 1585.
4. At Humacao
The allegations covering Humacao are based on charges against the Bull
Insular Line, and ILA and Local 1584, by employees Dionisio Santana Diaz and
Benito Ortiz . Humacao has no dock facilities. The ships anchor in the bay,
and from there are loaded or unloaded by barges or other craft which haul the
load to or from the ship to the shore. In this portion of the report we are not,
therefore, concerned with dockworkers as that term has been used heretofore,
particularly at Ponce.
Normally ships of the San Juan Trading Company, Inc., Waterman Dock
Company, Inc., Lykes Line Agency, Inc., and Bull Insular Line, Inc., call at
Humacao, mostly to load sugar during the grinding season. However, in 1951,
which is the year with which we are here primarily concerned, apparently only
Bull and San Juan Trading Company transacted business at this port. There
are about 65 members of Local 1584, and approximately 36 suplentes, who supply
the stevedoring work for around 15 or 16 ships that annually anchor in the
harbor during the sugar season. There is normally not enough work to go
around. When the Union is notified by the shipping company representative
that a ship is due, or about due, and of the number of gangs required, the union
president selects the men who are to work from a rotation list, picking union
members first, and then suplentes, and if necessary sees that they are notified.
At the proper time those selected appear at the gate to the pier and are again
11 The record is not too clear on the subject, but apparently the practice was for a
regular member to pay a straight $2 as monthly dues to the Union if he was not actually
working. If he was working he paid 25 cents a shift to the Union in lieu of the $2.
257965-54-vol. 103-79
1238 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
checked by the union president . If anyone is missing the president makes a
substitution. The men then go to the pier and are conveyed to the ship.
Benito Ortiz was a suplente. In February 1951, he paid the required initiation
fee of $15.50 and filed an application for membership in Local 1584. After sev-
eral meetings of the local, in none of which was the application presented for
acceptance or rejection due in each instance to the lack of a quorum , the initia-
tion fee was returned to him . In early June of that year while working aboard
a Bull vessel called the Katie , or the Kathryn, Ortiz had some trouble about the
work. It is his testimony that he was displaced by a union man, under orders
from President Gilberto Gonzales Pena of Local 1584, and when he protested
to Foreman Enrique Carillo, the latter told him nothing could be done about it.
However, a preponderance of the credible testimony in this respect discloses, and
I find , that Ortiz had worked with a gang in a forehold of this ship for 4 days ;
that on the fifth day of loading it became advisable to switch the crew to an
afthold, but Ortiz refused to work in the afthold, left the ship, and the president
of Local 1584 substituted another worker.
The next vessel that appeared was the Angelino on June 25. Ortiz' turn was
not due that day, according to his testimony. However, his name was called, but
he did not work as he was in San Juan filing charges at the Regional Office
of the Board. (Case No. 24-CB-40.) He worked on the next two vessels, the
Rosario and the Beatrice, but when the steamship Suzanne appeared in early
July he was denied an opportunity to work thereon, and was told by President
Pena, according to Oritz, that neither he nor Dionisio Santana Diaz, hereafter
referred to, would be given any further work until the charges which each of
them had filed were settled. President Pena denied that he ever stated that
Ortiz or Diaz could not work because they had filed charges, or that he had
ever received instructions from ILA President Moreno to that effect. However,
in an affidavit which Pena admittedly signed before a field examiner of the
Board on July 12, 1951, Pena stated that Ortiz did not work on the Suzanne or
a later boat, the Hilton, because of orders from President Moreno not to permit
either Ortiz or Diaz to work until the charges had been settled. In addition to
signing the affidavit, Pena admitted initialing each page thereof. He first ad-
mitted reading the affidavit before he signed it, but later qualified that by saying
that he just "glanced" through it, did not know what it contained, signed in a
hurry and left "not believing that [the field examiner] would do me any harm."
There is other credible testimony that Pena and Francisco Romero, the field ex-
aminer, spent considerable time in the conference that finally resulted in the
signing of the above affidavit. I therefore do not credit Pena's denial of Oritz'
testimony above and find that the ILA and Local 1584 prevented Ortiz and Diaz
from working as stevedores on the last several ships during the 1951 grinding
season."
Dionisio Santana Diaz, also a suplente, worked as a checker aboard ship.
There is one checker for each gang of 11 men, and there are 5 or 6 gangs aboard,
depending on the number of holds in the ship. There are about 8 union checkers
available, however, and as the union members are called first no nonunion
checker ever gets work on the first shift of a boat, except as a temporary sub-
stitute for a union member. Therefore, the suplente checkers' chances of being
called are normally limited to the night shift.
When the S S. Katherine was in port in June 1951. Santana Diaz was called
by the union president and worked that day on the first shift. Cruz Pena Ayala,
23 Actually, so far as the record discloses, there were only two ships at Humacao subse-
quent to the Suzanna, the Hilton and the Dorothy, as it was the tag end of the grinding by
that time. In the off sugar season practically no boats come to Humacao.
LOCAL 1664, (DOCK DIVISION) 1239
treasurer of Local 1584 and also a checker who would have been called by Presi-
dent Pena for that shift, was in town on union business. The next day Cruz was
available and the president put him to work on the first shift in place of Santana
Diaz . As a result, and as heretofore indicated, Santana Diaz on June 19 Sled
a charge against the ILA and Local 1584. Diaz may have thereafter worked on
1 or 2 ships, but as heretofore found, in early July about the time the Suzanne
arrived, neither he nor Ortiz was permitted to work further until the charges
they had filed had been "settled." Diaz did not testify as he left the Island for
the United States in October 1951, and had not returned at the time of the
hearing.
Conclusions as to Discrimination, Coercion, Interference, and Support at the
Ports of Ponce, Ensenada, Mayaguez, and Humacao
The allegations of unfair labor practices in the consolidated complaint are
grounded on the 2 contracts executed in 1950 between the Association and the
2 ILA District Councils (later merged into one District Council), and a contract
also executed in 1950 between the Sugar Company and Local 1762, ILA, covering
the port of Ensenada and its environs ; and the employment practices resulting
from the existence of these contracts. The two Association contracts above
described were for and on behalf of numerous locals of the ILA, as alleged in the
complaint and admitted in the answers, but specific evidence of coercive and
discriminatory treatment of employees was confined to the ports of Ponce,
Mayaguez, Humacao, and Ensenada . One ILA local at Ponce, 1782 (1782 result-
ing from a merger of 1664 and 1742 in 1950) is involved herein, one at Mayaguez,
1585 (1741 was merged in 1950 into 1585), 1584 at Humacao, and 1762 at
Ensenada.
All the above contracts, including that of the Sugar Company with ILA and
Local 1762, are identical in that the employers are obligated to hire longshore-
men from lists of workers prepared and maintained by the ILA local whose
membership was made up of the classifications required, such as coopers, checkers,
dockworkers, or stevedores at the particular port. The Union agreed to supply
all workers needed but it had exclusive control over the rotation lists and the
names that appeared thereon. Moreover, the employers were limited to hiring
employees through the Union for only one shift at a time. Such conditional
limitations on hiring in a collective-bargaining contract are illegal. The Great,
Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, 81 NLRB 1052. These illegal provisions are
not rendered ineffective by the so-called savings clause in the contracts. As.
written, this clause can only be construed to mean that until a proper tribunal
determines that a discharge for nonmembership in the contracting union is
unlawful, the union-security provisions are fully effective. Similar clauses have.
been held by the Board as inadequate to protect the contract from the taint,
of illegality. Essex County etc. Council of Carpenters , etc. and Fairmount Cop-
struction Company, 95 NLRB 969. Furthermore, it is immaterial whether any
action has been taken pursuant to the union-security provision acts as a restraint
upon those desiring to refrain from union activity. Lykens Hosiery Mills, Inc.,
S2 NLRB 981.
The procedure followed at the various ports , as a result of these contractual,
provisions, was for local union officials to call names of workers from the locals'
rotation list, assign workers to specific jobs, change assignments , and to displace,
nonunion workers when the Union felt it was advisable or expedient to sub.,
stitute a union man or other worker. If a worker protested against such dis-,
criminatory treatment to the Board, his name was stricken from the list.
1240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As has been found, ILA and its locals completely controlled the method of
selecting longshoremen by the Association members and the Sugar Company
because they administered the hiring provisions in the contracts. The ILA and
its locals are therefore jointly responsible for the coercive and discriminatory
effects of the illegal provisions and the administration thereof, as the ILA
negotiated and executed the contracts including these illegal hiring provisions and
arrangements, and delegated to the locals the management of the hiring provi-
sions. International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union etc., 94 NLRB
1091.
By accepting, executing, and enforcing the 1950-51 contracts containing illegal
hiring provisions, the Association and its members, and the Sugar Company,
violated Section 8 (a) (1), (2), and (3) of the Act; and the ILA and its locals
violated Section 8 (b) (2) and 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. Pacific American Ship-
owners Association, et al., 98 NLRB 582. The Association and its members by
discharging or otherwise causing loss of work to the employees listed in Appen-
dix B hereof, and the Sugar Company by discharging or otherwise causing loss
of work to the employees listed in Appendix A, have discriminated as to the
hire and tenure of employment of such workers to encourage membership in the
ILA, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act. By causing and at-
tempting to cause the Association and its members, and the Sugar Company, to
discriminate against the named employees, the ILA and its locals have violated
Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and 8 (b) (2) of the Act. Mundet Corporation, et al.,
96 NLRB 175. This is true even though proof is lacking that the ILA or any
of its locals specifically requested any of the Respondent Employers to discharge
or refuse to employ any of said employees. As the Board held in Childs Com-
pany, et al., 93 NLRB 281, "once such a contract has resulted in actual dis-
crimination, the Union must be deemed to have caused such discrimination."
C. Other alleged acts of interference and coercion in the consolidated complaint
The consolidated complaint also alleges that the ILA and its locals have re-
strained and coerced employees of Sugar Company, and employees of member
companies of the Association, in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section of
the Act by :
(a) Threatening to inflict bodily injury on certain of said employees and ap-
plicants for employment "in furtherance of said object."
(b) Threatening reprisals on said employees if they failed to sign checkoff
authorization cards or join 'the above-named Union "in furtherance of said
object."
I find no evidence in the record in the consolidated complaint hearing, or in the
refusal-to-bargain hearing, hereafter discussed, to substantiate or support any of
these allegations. I will therefore recommend that those portions of the com-
plaint be dismissed.
D. ILA's refusal to bargain
As heretofore noted, the 1950-51 contracts between the Association and ILA
District Councils Nos. 1 and 2 were executed on October 24, 1950, but both con-
tracts ran from January 1950 to December 31, 1951. In October 1950, after the
above contracts had been executed, both District Councils gave notice of a desire
to negotiate wages for the year 1951, in accordance with the terms of reopening
clauses in the contracts. The Association advised the Councils that, having just
negotiated a contract containing wage schedules, it was premature to reopen
negotiations on the subject. As a result, nothing further was done at that time
relative to the requests.
LOCAL 1664, (DOCK DIVISION) 1241
On October 24, 1951, ILA President Moreno renewed the request and asked that
negotiations start the next day for "salaries and benefits for 1951." Pursuant to
this request, representatives of the Association met with the ILA representatives
on October 25, and the ILA submitted its wage demands for 1951 retroactive to
the first of that year. The Association asked for time to study the demands, and
the meeting adjourned after some discussion of a current strike situation not
material here. October 29 Moreno requested that the negotiations include wages
for the year 1952 also. November 6 the Association agreed, stating that Adolfo
Collazo of the Insular Department of Labor Conciliation Service had been au-
thorized to fix the time and place for the negotiations. The Association's letter
continued :
However, in order to save time we believe that it will be more convenient
to carry out the pending negotiations for the two years 1951 and 1952 - simul-
taneously. We are also of the opionion that in respect to the year 1952 you
should submit to us a proposed contract before we begin negotiations so that
when we meet we are familiar with the amendments proposed by the Union
to the present contract, if any.
As a result of the above communication, and informal discussions between the
parties in an effort to work out some formula for the negotiations, Moreno wrote
to Ramon Rodriguez Sanchez, president of the Association, that it was the desire
of the ILA to (a) leave all working conditions as they were under the existing
contracts, (b) negotiate first on wages for 1951 until an agreement was reached,
and then (c) negotiate on 1952 wages, a welfare fund, vacation, and sick leave.
The letter specified what the ILA was demanding in the above respects, including
a 20-percent increase in wages for 1951, retroactive to January 1, and a 75-percent
increase in wages for 1952 over that agreed on for the previous year. The Asso-
ciation by letter dated November 15 rejected both wage demands and requested
that lower demands for 1952 be formulated by the ILA for presentation at an
arranged meeting on the 19th. The letter accepted the proposal that working
conditions continue "as they are in the current Agreement," but asked that before
wages were discussed the ILA bargain on certain unfulfilled clauses in the exist-
ing contracts 24 Although further meetings were held the parties made no sub-
stantial progress during the remainder of November.
On December 3 A. V. Cherbonnier, a New York attorney, entered the nego-
tiations as the principal spokesman for the Association . He took the position
that the union-security clauses in the current contracts, and the provision for
the payment of retroactive wages through the Union, were illegal, and should
not be included in any future contract with the ILA. The ILA asserted that all
the terms and conditions of the current contracts should be continued in full
force and effect and that the parties limit their negotiations to the wage demands.
Starting about November 29 the locals had been holding continuous meetings, or
"permanent assemblies," and the stevedores were not working. On December 5,
through the efforts of the Conciliation Service, the parties agreed in writing that
(1) the stevedores return to work the next day and refrain from work stoppages
23 Gremio de Prensa y Radio, an ILA affiliate, composed of employees of Radio Station
WKAQ, had struck that station , and the stevedores employed by the shipping company
members of the Association refused to cross the picket line.
24 There had been several work stoppages in 1951 , one when the stevedores refused to
cross the picket line established in the radio station strike , above referred to, and another
in San Juan involving expansion drums. The existing contracts had a clause providing
that on 48 hours ' notice to the shipping companies the locals could hold continuous meet-
ings when no work would be performed. Among other things, the Association wanted
assurances that during the negotiations the above clause could not be used for strike
purposes.
4242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
during the negotiations which were to "continue in almost constant" session until
agreement was reached, (2) the negotiations were to cover wages for 1951 and
wages and benefits for 1952, and that the Association would agree to a wage
increase of not less than 3 cents an hour retroactive to January 1, 1951, and (3)
the terms of the new agreement would be "in full compliance with the existing
laws."
During this early December period the Association submitted its proposals for
a new contract including, among others, amendments to the existing union-shop
clauses, and a provision for the payment of any retroactive wages agreed upon
for the year 1951 to the stevedores directly, instead of through the Union. The
ILA, however, insisted that the wage demands were the only subjects to nego-
tiate; that other terms and conditions in the current contracts were not open
for discussion because the Association had already agreed to continue those
terms and conditions. In this apparent impasse, and at the suggestion of a
United States conciliator whose services had been invoked, the negotiators exe-
cuted a stipulation providing (1) adjournment of the negotiations to January 8,
1952; (2) wage increases for 1951, and wage increases and fringe benefits for
3952, to be retroactive to the first of each year, providing an agreement was
reached thereon by February 1, 1952; (3) no work stoppages during the post-
ponement; and (4) after January 8, 10 days' notice prior to breaking off
negotiations.
When the negotiators reconvened on January 8, the Association reiterated its
demand that any new contract contain a legal union-security clause and a pro-
vision that any retroactive pay agreed upon go directly to the stevedores. The
ILA did not dispute the authenticity of these proposed clauses, but insisted that
the 1951 wage demand should first be disposed of before any other terms were
discussed. On January 10 the ILA gave notice that negotiations would termi-
nate in 10 days, as provided in the December postponement stipulation, and of
intention to strike .25
Notwithstanding the above notice the negotiators continued to meet. On
January 17 Moreno suggested that Cherbonnier and A. V. Townsend R° both with-
draw, and that negotiations be held in the Spanish language instead of in English.
On January 17 and 19, after the above proposal was rejected, Moreno, although
he could speak English fluently, refused to negotiate except in Spanish. As this
required the services of an interpreter, it slowed the progress of the negotiations.
On January 18 the Association, in an effort to avert the impending strike, sub-
mitted a third proposal containing, among other things, a wage increase retro-
active in part to January 1, 1951. and also a legal union-shop clause.
The ILA submitted an "answer" to the above proposal wherein, among other
matters, it restated its previously amended wage demands for 1951 (higher in
certain respects than the Association was offering), and also for 1952. It specifi-
cally rejected the Association's proposal for
A "Union Shop" without attempting to circumvent or nullify existing laws.
and proposed in lieu thereof,
75 When the negotiators reconvened in January , Moreno, appearing with a representative
of the Watchmen's Union announced that before an agreement was reached covering the
stevedores, etc., a contract with the Watchmen would have to be worked out with the
Association No objection was voiced to this proposal, although the Association questioned
the authority of the ILA to represent the Watchmen. A contract was signed later with
that union , also on March 6, 1952.
Is Townsend , executive vice president of the International Longshoremen's Association,
had come from the United States to assist in the negotiations on behalf of the ILA.
LOCAL 1664, (DOCK DIVISION) 1243
Amendment to Union Shop Clause so that same may be in accordance with
the law, but with adequate proviso for the due protection of the workers
and their seniority rights and "Hiring Hall."
The answer also criticized as a disrupting influence Cherbonnier's entrance into
the negotiations.
The strike, of which the ILA had previously given notice, started on Jan-
uary 20 and continued until February 16, 1952. During the period of the strike
efforts at negotiations continued. On January 24, through the Insular Concilia-
tion Service, the ILA made the following proposal "tentative providing" a "suit-
able wage scale for 1951 and 1952" was agreed upon :
(1) Payment of wages for 1951 and 1952 shall be made directly to the
workers earning such wages or if the workers desire such wages to be paid
to Unions it will be done by signed authorization.
(2) Union Shop or Open Shop according to law.
(3) Check-off Union dues with a proper signed authorization.
On or about January 29 the ILA made its first specific proposal as a substitute
for the objected-to union-security provision in the old contracts, as follows in
part:
WHEREAS, the District Council of the Ports of Puerto Rico-and its affili-
ated chapters are in a position to supply to the Companies the number of
skilled and experienced workers whenever they are needed by said
Companies.
Now, THEREFORE , the following terms and conditions are agreed upon
between the parties to this agreement:
THE PARTY of the First Part shall employ for the work of stevedoring as
defined in Article I of the Agreement all the necessary workers herein and
hereinafter required through a Safety and Protected Place of the Selection
of Longshoremen for the selection of stevedores, said Safety Place to be
operated and administered by the local unions herein designated. The
Term A Safety and Protected Place of the Selection of Longshoremen used
herein includes all places of employment.
The Association felt that this proposal did not meet the requirements of the
statute relative to union security and promptly submitted a counterproposal
which, among other things, provided as follows :
Membership in the Union shall be a condition of employment on and after
the 30th day following the beginning of such employment, provided the
employer has no reasonable grounds for believing, (1) that such membership
was not available to the employee on the same terms and conditions gen-
erally applicable to other members, and, (2) that membership in the union
was not denied or terminated for reasons other than the failure of the
employee to tender the periodic dues and initiation fees uniformly required
as a condition for acquiring or retaining membership in the union.
The above proposals , together with an amended proposal proffered by the
Association on or after February 9, asking for the elimination of the hiring
practices existing in most of the ports of the Island, were by mutual agreement
submitted to a smaller committee for study and recommendations . This sub-
committee, consisting of F. M. McCarthy of the Bull Insular Line and Oscar
Imbert of Fred Imbert, Inc., for the Association, and E. G. Moreno and A. V.
Townsend for the ILA, after an all -night session, made a report and recom-
1244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mendations to the full committee on February 15. This report formed the basis
for an agreement executed on March 6, 1952, extending the terms of the 1950-51
contract, with certain changes and modifications.
The changes and modifications in the new contract here material apply to the
method of paying wage increases granted and the union shop. It provided for
the payment of retroactive wage increases directly to the workers earning the
money, and incorporated word for word the union-shop provision submitted by
the Association quoted above. The new contract, containing the above provisions
and other amendments to the terms in the old contracts not here material, is
effective to December 31, 1953.
Conclusions as to the Refusal to Bargain
As previously noted, the ILA refused to participate in any portion of the hear-
ing involving the refusal-to-bargain complaint against the ILA. All the evidence
received in support of the refusal-to-bargain allegations therefore stands un-
disputed and undenied. It is alleged in the complaint, admitted in the answer
of the ILA, the evidence shows, and I find that :
1. Steamship Association at all times material herein has been and now is
the authorized representative of its member companies for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining with labor organizations with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other conditions of employment of the employees of
its member companies.
2. International Longshoremen's Association, District Council of Ports of
Puerto Rico, and its affiliate Locals 1575, 1584, 1585, 1674, 1675, 1677, 1682,
1717, 1727, 1740, 1743, 1744, 1746, 1762, and 1782, are all and each of them labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act; and Eusebio G.
Moreno , president of International Longshoremen's Association, District Coun-
cil of the Ports of Puerto Rico, is the agent of the above unions, and at all times
material herein has been engaged in promoting and protecting the interests of
the employee members of said unions and each of them.
3. All longshoremen, ashore and aboard, including stevedores, waterboys,
winchmen, coopers, gangwaymen, motormen, crane operators, dock checkers, and
clerks (except dock checkers and clerks of Bull Insular Lines, Inc., and its
affiliated companies), and any other workers engaged in the manual operation
of loading and unloading of vessels and classification of cargo in the various
ports of Puerto Rico who are employees of the member companies of the Puerto
Rico Steamship Association, excluding watchmen, guards, foremen, profes-
sional , administrative, and executive employees, office clerical employees, and
all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4. Prior to October 1, 1950, a majority of the employees of the member com-
panies of the Association comprised in said unit designated the above Respondent
Unions as their representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining. On
October 1, 1950, and at all times material herein the Respondent Unions and
each of them have been and now are the exclusive representatives of the em-
ployees of each of the member companies of the Association in the above-
described unit, for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment, by virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
As heretofore found, bargaining negotiations between the ILA and the Asso-
ciation were instituted in late October 1951, when that union demanded, and
was granted, conferences for the purpose of negotiating wage increases for the
LOCAL 1664, (DOCK DIVISION) 1245
year 1951 under the reopening clauses in the existing contracts, both of which
contracts were due to expire the following December. As it developed that the
ILA was also interested in negotiating wage increases for the year 1952, the
Association desired to discuss and negotiate other terms and conditions to be em-
bodied in a new contract, and particularly wanted to eliminate from such con-
tract the illegal union-security provisions in the old contract clauses requiring
the companies to pay any retroactive wage increases granted to the Union,
instead of directly to the employees.
On the other hand the ILA insisted that all provisions in the old contract, ex-
cepting the wage schedules, be carried forward and extended into any new con-
tract that was agreed upon. To enforce its position the Union called an Island-
wide strike of stevedores which continued from January 20 to about February
16, 1952, and seriously affected the economy of the Island. This strike was
broken because of a temporary restraining order issued on February 6, 1952, by
the United States District Court of Puerto Rico. The ILA never made any legiti-
mate counterproposal, prior to the issuance of the restraining order, to the
Association's specific demand for the elimination of the old provisions concerning
union security. On January 18 the ILA rejected the Association' s proposal for a
legal union-shop clause, and proposed a hiring hall. It is true that on January
24 the ILA proposed a "Union Shop or Open Shop according to law," but this
proposal was conditional; and its substitute proposal of January 29 was in
effect an illegal union hiring-hall arrangement. It was not until about February
14, after the strike was broken, that the ILA agreed to eliminate from the new
contract the objected-to clauses in the old contracts.
As heretofore found, the union-security provisions in the old contracts were
illegal . Also, the requirement that employees' retroactive pay be distributed
through the Union was unlawful. Section 302 (a) and (g) of the Act n How-
ever, the Union abandoned this latter illegal provision on and after January 24,
1952.
The ILA's insistence that the Association maintain in effect the illegal hiring
provisions of the 1950-51 contracts during the course of the negotiations and its
demand that such provisions be included in the new contract, together with the
strike which in part at least was to enforce such illegal terms, constituted a
refusal to bargain, in violation of Section 8 (b) (3) of the Act. Such conduct also
violated Section 8 (b) (2) and Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. Acme Mattress
Co., 91 NLRB 1010, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher 'Workmen, etc., 81
NLRB 1052, National Maritime Union of America, 78 NLRB 971.
As previously found, the ILA (through its two District Councils which were
later merged) negotiated the 1950-51 contracts for and on behalf of the locals
herein described. Thereafter the locals administered the provisions thereof.
In the negotiations for a new contract the ILA acted for itself and its locals.
All said Respondent Unions are therefore jointly and severally liable for the var-
ious violations of the Act herein found.
At this point some further discussion seems advisable on the motion to dismiss
the 24-CB-40 case. As previously noted, at the conclusion of the hearing on the
b+ Restrictions on payments to employee representatives.
Section 302. (a) It shall be unlawful for any employer to pay or deliver, or to
agree to pay or deliver , any money or other thing of value to any representative of
any of his employees who are employed in an industry affecting commerce.
,(b) It shall be unlawful for any representative of any employees who are employed
in an industry affecting commerce to receive or accept , or to agree to receive or
accept, from the employer of such employee any money or other thing of value.
[(c) of the above Section provides for certain exceptions to the application of the
above provisions not here material.}
1246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
consolidated complaint, the ILA in effect moved to dismiss the refusal-to-bargain
complaint on the ground that the issue was moot because the ILA and the
Association had bargained on and actually executed a legitimate collective-
bargaining contract. When this motion was denied the ILA withdrew from the
bearing and took no further part therein, except that in its brief filed after the
conclusion of the hearings, it again asked that the 24-CB-40 complaint be
dismissed on the ground previously stated. It is of course true, as above found,
that the parties eventually executed an apparently legitimate contract on March
6, 1952. On the face of it therefore it would seem that there is some merit in
the Union's position in this respect. Although no cases have been cited in
support of the ILA's contention, I find one case, Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing
Company, 72 NLRB 855, where the Board ordered that a refusal-to-bargain
complaint be dismissed under somewhat similar circumstances as we have here.
In the Allis-Chalmers case, the company moved to dismiss, one of the grounds
being that the issues involved were moot because the union and the company
had executed a contract. When this motion, made at the conclusion of the
General Counsel's case , was denied by the Trial Examiner, the company asked
for and secured leave to take an interlocutory appeal to the Board. In its
decision the Board stated that execution of a contract after the institution of
an 8 (a ) (5) proceeding "does not render moot the question of whether or not
the Respondent previously violated" the Act by refusing to bargain with the
Union. Nevertheless the Board dismissed that complaint because
execution of the contract . . . does render unnecessary at this time an
affirmative order . . . requiring the Respondent to bargain with the Union.
Furthermore, completion of the hearing and processing of the case would
require a substantial expenditure of time, when the Board has a heavy
case load requiring attention, and is operating under serious budgetary
limitations.
In the instant case, in addition to the motion to dismiss having been made at
the very inception of the refusal-to-bargain hearing, the findings and conclusions
In the consolidated complaint, heretofore made, will probably justify a cease-
and-desist order broad enough to prevent the parties from continuing in effect
the illegal provisions in the expired 1950-51 contracts, or from entering into
any contract, or enforcing provisions, violative of the Act.
In resisting the original motion to dismiss, the General Counsel stated :
It is our position that the allegations in CB-40 are of a different nature,
although very closely related, and probably growing out of what had been
going on under the 1950-51 contract.
In the refusal-to-bargain case emphasis was placed not on1T on the insistence on
including in the contract under negotiation of illegal union-security provisions
(underscored as a practice in the consolidated complaint hearing), but also the
inclusion therein of an illegal clause requiring payment of retroactive wages
directly to the Union, a subject not previously referred to in the testimony
(although, of course, one of the 1950-51 contracts containing the clause was
received as an exhibit). Other factors also differentiate this case from Allis-
Chalmers. A strike was called to enforce the illegal demands and the United
States District Court of Puerto Rico issued an order restraining the strike. That
temporary order resulted in the strikers returning to work within a few days
thereafter and no further injunctive relief was sought from the court ; but it is
now up to the Board to make a final adjudication on the merits and issue
its order. Furthermore, as appears by the record, the hiring-hall practices
complained about are still continuing in some of the ports, regardless of the
LOCAL 1664, (DOCK DIVISION) 1247
terms in the new contract. Under the circumstances, therefore, it is advisable
in my judgment that the Board issue an order restraining the ILA and its various
locals not only from insisting on including illegal provisions in any present or
future contract, but also from continuing such illegal practices with respect to
the employees or potential employees of the Association members. The motion
to dismiss the 24-CB-40 complaint is therefore denied.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the ILA and its various named locals, the Association and
its members, and the Sugar Company, set forth in section III, above, occurring
in connection with the operations of the Association and its member companies
and the Sugar Company, described in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States
and Territories, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It has been found that, by the execution and enforcement of the illegal pro-
visions of the contracts, the Association and its members and the Sugar Com-
pany have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8
(a) (1), (2), and (3), and the ILA and its locals have engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and 8 (b) (2). All these
contracts, however, have expired by their own limitation and a new contract
is now in effect between the ILA and the Association which apparently is free
from illegal provisions. So far as the record discloses no new contract has
been executed between ILA and Sugar Company. However, up to the time of the
hearing the discriminatory practice of hiring only through union-controlled
employment lists has continued at least in some of the ports of Puerto Rico.
It will therefore be recommended that all the parties herein cease and desist
from enforcing the practices herein found to be illegal, or making and enforcing
any contract, or contracts, containing illegal union-security clauses, illegal hir-
ing-hall clauses, or other provisions contrary to the letter and spirit of the Act.
It has also been found that the employees named on Appendixes A and B have
been discriminated against in the hire and tenure of their employment because
of the unlawful provisions in the old contracts and the discriminatory practices
arising therefrom. As above found, the stevedores, checkers, and other workers
with which we are herein concerned do not work every day, as in a conventional
plant. Their work time is limited to that required to load or unload a ship
docked at one of the ports in Puerto Rico. In most of the ports there are more
workers in most classifications than are needed, even when a ship is in port,
and a longshoreman can, therefore, only secure temporary employment, even
when work in his classification is needed, when his "turn" comes. The evil that
developed in employment as a result of the 1950-51 contracts was that the ILA
and its locals absolutely controlled the rotation lists used to secure such workers.
When a ship arrived the officials of the particular local saw to it that its members
were first called to work. What work remained was divided up among the
suplentes and other nonunion workers. But a worker had to be on the list in
order to secure any employment. In addition to controlling the list and calling
the names therefrom of those who were to secure work, as above outlined, the
local also added names to or subtracted names from the list as it saw fit. The
Sugar Company and the Association fully cooperated in these discriminatory,
practices of the locals.
1248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In order to eliminate these discriminatory practices and as near as practically
possible to place the employees herein involved on an equal working basis, it
will be recommended that Sugar Company immediately include those named
on Appendix A, and all others similarly situated, on its list of available em-
ployees ; that Waterman Dock Company, Inc., Bull Insular Line, Inc., and all
other members of the Association similarly operating, include those workers
named in Appendix B,2B and all others similarly situated, on their lists of avail-
able employees at the particular ports appearing after the names of the listed
workers ; and that each of said workers be employed on a straight rotation
basis, without regard to their membership or nonmembership in any union,
whenever their particular classification is needed, with full rights of seniority
and other rights and privileges as employees. These employees should also be
made whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against
them.
As it is apparent that the ILA and certain locals, on the one hand, and the
Association and its members or the Sugar Company, as the case may be, on
the other hand, are equally responsible for the loss of work by the above em-
ployees, it will be recommended that the ILA and the above locals, and the
Association and its members, or the Sugar Company, as it may appear, jointly
and severally make whole said employees for any loss of pay suffered as a re-
sult of the discrimination against them by payment to each of them of a sum
of money equal to what his normal net wages would be to the date of the offer
of employment as a regular employee, and placement on the above-described ro-
tation list or lists of employees.
The back pay shall be computed in accordance with the formula promulgated
in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. For the purpose of determining
employment status and back pay due, the various members of the Association,
and the Sugar Company, upon request, shall make necessary records available
to the Board. Liability for further back pay shall terminate against ILA or
any of its locals 5 days after the date upon which they cause notice to be served
upon the the appropriate members of the Association, or the Sugar Company, as
the case may be, that they have no objection to the employment of the above-
named employees.
Having found that the ILA and all its locals have refused to bargain with
the Association in that they insisted on including in the new contract illegal
union-security provisions and called a strike to enforce such demands, and are
continuing in practice the illegal union-security provisions even though the old
1950-51 contracts have terminated and the new 1952 contract contains no such
illegal provisions, it will also be recommended that the ILA and its locals cease
and desist from such practices, and from demanding the inclusion of such illegal
provisions in any bargaining negotiations or in any collective-bargaining con-
tract, or striking to enforce such demands.
As it has been found that the Association and its members, the Sugar Com-
pany, and the ILA and its locals, violated the Act not only by entering into and
performing the illegal agreements, but also by discriminating in the employ-
ment of specified workers, it will therefore also be recommended that all the
Respondents herein cease and desist, not only from the unfair labor practices
found, but also from in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or co-
ercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Pacific American Shipowners Association, etc., 98 NLRB 582.
Although violation of Section 8 (a) (2) and 8 (b) (2) has been found herein,
I do not believe the purposes of the Act will be served by requiring the employers
28 Except Agostin Anabitate Colon who was reinstated on the list on December 1, 1950.
LOCAL 1664, (DOCK DIVISION) 1249
to withhold recognition from the ILA and its locals until their right to represent
the employees has legally been established by certification. For a number of
years, and before the conduct herein found of assistance to the Unions occurred,
the ILA and its locals have represented the longshoremen in all the ports of
the Island. There is no competing union in that respect ; nor is there any
showing or contention that the above Unions do not represent uncoerced major-
ities of the employees. I will therefore recommend, in the interest of continuing
industrial peace which apparently now exists in the Island, and as suggested
by the General Counsel, that the Companies involved herein, as well as the
Unions, cease and desist from giving effect to the illegal provisions in the old
contracts and in the 1952 contract, or from illegal practices resulting therefrom.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record made
in the various hearings including the so-called refusal-to-bargain hearing, I make
the following :
CONcLusIONs OF LAW
1. The South Porto Rico Sugar Company, and Puerto Rico Steamship Asso-
ciation and its affiliated members, including Bull Insular Line, Inc., Waterman
Dock Company, Inc., San Juan Trading Company, Inc., Lykes Line Agency, Inc.,
Pope & Talbot Lines, San Juan Mercantile Corporation, Fred Imbert, Inc., Puerto
Rico Dry Dock and Marine Terminals, Inc., Behn Brothers, Inc., The Porto
Rico Coal Company, Porto Rico Lighterage Company, and Mendez & Co., Inc.,
are all and each of them employers within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the
Act, and are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
2. International Longshoremen's Association, District Council of Ports of
Puerto Rico, and its affiliate Local 1575, 1782, 1585, 1584, 1675, 1682, 1762, 1674,
1677, 1717, 1727, 1740, 1743, 1744, 1746, and Union de Trabajadores de Abordo y
Muelle de Ponce ( Ind.) are all and each of them labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. Eusebio G. Moreno is the agent of ILA
and its locals.
3. By the execution and enforcement of the 1950-51 contracts containing
illegal union-security provisions the Association and its members and the Sugar
Company have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1), (2 ), and (3 ) of the Act.
4. By the execution and enforcements of the above contracts, the ILA and
its locals have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act.
5. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of the
employees listed in Appendix A hereof, the Sugar Company has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)
(1) and (3) of the Act.
6. By causing Sugar Company to discriminate against the employees listed
in Appendix A in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, the ILA and Local
1762 have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and 8 ( b) (2) of the Act.
7. The Association and its members named in paragraph 1 of these conclu-
sions, by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of the
employees listed in Appendix B hereof, have engaged in and are engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the
Act.
8. The ILA and its affiliate Locals 1782, 1584, 1585, and 1762 by causing the
Association and its members to discriminate against the employees named in
1250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Appendix B in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, have engaged in and
are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1)
( a) and8 (b) (2) of the Act.
9. The ILA and Local 1762 by restraining and coercing employees of Sugar
Company in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and the
ILA and its locals named in paragraph 8 immediately above, by restraining and
coercing employees of the members of the Association in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, have engaged in and are engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
10. At all times since on or about October 1, 1950, the ILA and its affiliate locals
named in paragraph 2, above, and each of them, and Eusebio G. Moreno, have
been the representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining designated by
a majority of the employees of the member companies of the Association in an
appropriate unit consisting of :
All longshoremen, ashore and aboard , including stevedores, waterboys, winch
men, coopers, gangway men, motormen , train operators, docks checkers and
clerks (except dock checkers and clerks of Bull Insular Lines, Inc., and its
affiliated Companies), and any other workers engaged in the manual operation
of loading and unloading of vessels and classification of cargo in the various
ports of Puerto Rico who are employees of the member companies of the Puerto
Rico Steamship Association, excluding watchmen, guards, foremen , professional,
administrative, and executive employees, office clerical employees , and all super-
visors as defined in the Act ; and
By virtue of Section 9 (a) they have been and are now the exclusive repre-
sentative of all the employees of the member companies of the Association in
said unit for the purpose of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay,
hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
11. Puerto Rico Steamship Association during all the times material herein
has been and now is the duly authorized and designated bargaining representa-
tive of its member companies for the purpose of bargaining with labor organ-
izations with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment, wages, and other
conditions of employment of the employees of its member companies.
12. The ILA, all its locals, and Eusebio G. Moreno, although duly requested,
have at all times from on or about October 25, 1951, down to February 15, 1952,
refused to bargain with the Association by insisting upon continuing and includ-
ing in any negotiated agreement illegal union-security and preferential-hiring
provisions ; and by calling a strike to enforce said demands. By said acts the
ILA, its locals, and said Moreno have violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A), 8 (b) (3),
and 8 (b) (2) of the Act.
13. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
Appendix A
Employees herein found to have been discriminated against by Sugar Com-
pany, and ILA and Local 1762, who reside or are employed in the Ensenada
area.
Fermin Garcia William Vargas
Benito Montalvo Luis Velez Quinones
Guillermo Melendez Baez Emiliano Vargas Sepulveda
Jesus Maria Aviles Manuel Vargas Sepulveda I
Antonio Torres Manuel Vargas Sepulveda II
LOCAL 1664, (DOCK DIVISION) 1251
Appendix B
Employees residing in places opposite their names found to have been dis-
criminatorily treated by the members of the Association, and the ILA and its
affiliate Locals 1782, 1584, 1585, and 1762.
Antonio Anglero Alers, Ponce, P. It.
Samuel Bermudez, Ponce, P. R.
Alejandro Quirindongo, Ponce, P. It.
Alfredo Arroyo, Ponce, P. R.
Agostin Anabitate Colon, Ponce, P. R.
Dionisio Santana Diaz , Humacao, P. It.
Benito Ortiz, Humacao, P. R.
Pedro Rosas, Ponce, P. R.
Antonio Mendez Gorbea, Ponce, P. R.
Juan Maria Pizzini , Mayaguez, P. It.
Fermin Garcia , Ensenada, P. R.
Benito Montalvo , Ensenada, P. R.
Guillermo Melendez Baez, Ensenada, P. R.
Jesus Maria Aviles, Ensenada, P. It.
Antonio Torres, Ensenada, P. R.
William Vargas, Ensenada, P. It.
Luis Velez Quinones , Ensenada, P. R.
Emiliano Vargas Sepulveda , Ensenada, P. It.
Manuel Vargas Sepulveda I, Ensenada, P. R.
Manuel Vargas Sepulveda II, Ensenada, P. R.
NB : It will be observed that the last 10 names on the above list are the same
individuals as are listed in Appendix A. This is because these 10 workers
were eligible for employment at Ensenada by the Sugar Company on 1
of the boats under its control, as well as by the Bull Insular Line, the only
member of the Association apparently supplying boats at this particular
port during the periods material herein.
Appendix C
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 cease performing or giving effect to our 1950-51 contract with
ILA Local 1762 covering our employees, or to any modification, extension,
supplement, or renewal thereof, insofar as it requires membership in Local
1762, or any other labor organization of our employees, or prevents us from
securing and retaining employees on a nondiscriminatory basis , except in
accordance with the provisions of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT enter into, renew, or enforce any agreement with ILA Local
1762, or any other labor organization of our employees, which expressly or
in its performance requires membership in a labor organization, or prevents
us from securing and retaining employees on a nondiscriminatory basis,
except as provided in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT encourage membership in ILA Local 1762, or any other labor
organization of our employees, by discriminating in regard to the hire or
1252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tenure of employment of our employees, or any term or condition of em-
ployment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the
Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment
as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer to the following employees immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice
to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and make them whole for
any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against them :
Fermin Garcia William Vargas
Benito Montalvo Luis Velez Quinones
Guillermo Melendez Baez Emiliano Vargas Sepulveda
Jesus Maria Aviles Manuel Vargas Sepulveda I
Antonio Torres Manuel Vargas Sepulveda II
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming mem-
bers of the ILA or any of its locals, or any other labor organization, except to
the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement in conformity with
the provisions of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
Sours PORTO Rico SUGAR Co.,
Employer.
Dated --------------------• By ----------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Appendix D
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 WILL cease performing or giving effect to 1950-52 contract entered into
with the ILA, or to any modification, extension, supplement, or renewal
thereof; and cease giving effect to the 1952 contract entered into with said
union, insofar as said contracts require membership in the ILA or any of its
locals, or any other labor organization of our employees, or prevents us from
securing and retaining employees on a nondiscriminatory basis, except in
accordance with the provisions of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
We WILL NOT enter into, renew, or enforce any agreement with the ILA
or its locals, or any other labor organization of our employees which expressly
or in its performance requires membership in any labor organization or
prevents us from securing or retaining employees on a nondiscriminatory
basis, except in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 (a) (3) of
the Act.
WE WILL NOT encourage membership in the ILA, or in any other labor
organization of our employees, or discourage membership in any other labor
organization by discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employ-
ment or any term or condition of employment.
LOCAL 1664, (DOCK DIVISION) 1253
WE wn offer to the following employees immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions in the ports
listed after their names without prejudice to their seniority and other rights
and privileges , and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result
of the discrimination against them :
Antonio Anglero Alers, Ponce, P. R.
Samuel Bermudez , Ponce, P. R.
Alejandro Quirindongo , Ponce, P. R.
Alfredo Arroyo, Ponce, P. R.
Agostin Anabitate Colon,' Ponce, P. R.
Pedro Rosas, Ponce, P. R.
Antonio Mendez Gorbea, Ponce, P. R.
Juan Maria Pizzini , Mayaguez, P. R.
Dionisio Santana Diaz, Humacao, P. R.
Fermin Garcia, Ensenada, P. R.
Benito Montalvo, Ensenada, P. R.
Guillermo Melendez Baez, Ensenada, P. R.
Jesus Maria Aviles, Ensenada, P. R.
Antonio Torres, Ensenada, P. R.
William Vargas , Ensenada, P. R.
Luis Velez Quinones , Ensenada, P. R.
Emiliano Vargas Sepulveda , Ensenada, P. R.
Manuel Vargas Sepulveda I, Ensenada, P. R.
Manuel Vargas Sepulveda II, Ensenada, P. R.
WE wn r. Nor in any manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the
Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment
as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming, mem-
bers in good standing of the above-named union or any other labor organization,
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement in con-
formity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
PUERTO Rico STEAMSHIP ASSOCIATION
Dated -------------------- By -------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
BULL INSULAR LINE, INC.
Dated -------------------- By -------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
WATERMAN DOCK COMPANY, INC.
Dated -------------------- By -------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
SAN JUAN TRADING COMPANY, INC.
Dated -------------------- By ---------------------------------
Dated --------------------
I Reinstated in December 1950.
(Representative) (Title)
LYKES LINE AGENCY, INC.
By -------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
257965-54-vol. 103-80
1254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
POPE & TALBOT LINES
Dated -------------------- By -------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated --------------------
Dated --------------------
SAN JUAN MERCANTILE CORPORATION
By -------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
FRED IMBERT, INO.
By -------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
PUERTO Rico DRY DOCK
TERMINALS, INC.
AND MARINE
By -------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
BEHN BROTHERS, INC.
By -------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
THE PoaTO RICO COAL COMPANY
By -------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
PORTO Rico LIGHTERAGE COMPANY
Dated -------------------- By -------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
MENDEZ & COMPANY, INC.
Dated -------------------- By -------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Appendix E
To ALL OFFICERS, REPRESENTATIVES , AGENTS, AND MEMBERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL
LONGSHOREMEN 'S ASSOCIATION , DISTRICT COUNCIL OF PORTS OF PUERTO Rico AND
ITS AFFILIATED LOCALS
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 as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with the PUERTO RICO STEAMSHIP ASSOCIA-
TION as a representative of its employer-members in the unit herein found
appropriate with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and
other conditions of employment by insisting upon and demanding the inclu-
sion in any collective-bargaining agreement entered into between the ILA
and the Association of illegal union-security and preferential hiring pro-
visions and provisions requiring the payment of retroactive wages to the
ILA instead of to the employees affected.
WE WILL NOT require, instruct, or induce our representatives or agents to
demand that the Association on behalf of its employer-members execute
contracts which expressly, or in their performance, make membership in
the ILA a condition of employment, except in accordance with the provisos
in Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
LOCAL 1664, (DOCK DIVISION) 1255
WE WILL NOT direct, instigate, encourage, approve or ratify strike action
for the purpose of requiring that the Association on behalf of the above-
named Companies execute contracts which expressly, or in their per-
formance, make membership in the ILA a condition of employment, except
in accordance with the provisos in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL cease performing or giving effect to our 1950-51 contracts with
the Association and with the Sugar Company or to any modifications, ex-
tensions , supplements, or renewals thereof, or any practices arising there-
under, or to the 1952 contract with the Association, or to any modifications,
extensions, supplements, or renewals thereof, insofar as said contracts apply
to an illegal union-security provision, or other illegal provisions, for their
execution.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees of any
of the aforementioned employers, their successors, or assigns, in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, or the right to refrain
therefrom , except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN 'S ASSOCIATION,
DISTRICT COUNCIL OF PORTS OF PUERTO RICO
AND ITS AFFILIATED LOCALS
Dated -------------------- By ------------------------------------------
,(Representative ) i(Title)
------------------------------------------
Eusebio G . Moreno
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Appendix F
To INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN 'S ASSOCIATION, DISTRICT COUNCIL OF PORTS OF
PUERTO RICO AND ITS AFFILIATE LOCALS 1782, 1584, 1585, AND 1762, THEIR OFFI-
CERS , REPRESENTATIVES, AGENTS, AND MEMBERS
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 as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT cause , or attempt to cause, the Puerto Rico Steamship As-
sociation and its members Bull Insular Line, Inc., and Waterman Dock
Company, Inc., and any other members of the Association similarly situated,
or the South Porto Rico Sugar Company , to discriminate in any manner
against their respective employees.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees of any
of the above-mentioned employers, their successors or assigns , in the exer-
cise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act, or the right to
refrain therefrom, except to the extent that such'rights may be affected by
an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition
of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL make whole the following employees for any loss of pay suffered
as a result of the discrimination against them :
Antonio Anglero Alers, Ponce, P. R.
Samuel Bermudez, Ponce, P. R.
Alejandro Quirindongo, Ponce, P. R.
1256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Alfredo Arroyo, Ponce, P. R.
Agostin Anabitate Colon, Ponce, P. R.
Pedro Rosas, Ponce, P. R.
Antonio Mendez Gorbea, Ponce, P. R.
Juan Maria Pizzini, Mayaguez, P. R.
Dionisio Santana Diaz, Humacao, P. R.
Fermin Garcia, Ensenada, P. R.
Benito Montalvo, Ensenada, P. R.
Guillermo Melendez Baez, Ensenada, P. R.
Jesus Maria Aviles, Ensenada, P. R.
Antonio Torres, Ensenada, P. R.
William Vargas, Ensenada, P. R.
Luis Velez Quinones, Ensenada, P. R.
Emiliano Vargas Sepulveda , Ensenada, P. R.
Manuel Vargas Sepulveda I, Ensenada, P. R.
Manuel Vargas Sepulveda II, Ensenada, P. R.
WE HAVE no objection to the employment of the above-named persons, or
other workers similarly situated, and have given the above-named employers
written notice to that effect.
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S
ASSOCIATION, DISTRICT COUNCIL
OF THE PORTS OF PUERTO RICO
Dated-------------------- By---------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
ILA LOCAL 1782
Dated-------------------- By---------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
ILA LOCAL 1584
Dated-------------------- By---------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
ILA LOCAL 1585
Dated-------------------- By---------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
ILA LocAL 1762
Dated-------------------- By---------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
RADIO AND TELEVISION BROADCAST ENGINEERS UNION, LOCAL 1212, IN-
TERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, A. F. L. and
COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. Case No. 2-CD 68. March
30, 1953
Decision and Determination of Dispute
This proceeding arises under Section 10 (k) of the Act, which pro-
vides that "whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in
103 NLRB No. 139.