Lenox Plastics of P.R., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 13, 1960

128 N.L.R.B. 42 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
vote for representation, we find that the following will constitute
separate units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
(a) All professional employees employed at the Employer's lab-
oratory located at its Detroit, Michigan, refinery, excluding all other
employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) All nonprofessional employees employed at the Employer's
laboratory located at its Detroit, Michigan, refinery, excluding all
other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(3) In the event a majority of the professional employees do not
vote for inclusion in the unit with the nonprofessional employees
and vote against representation we find that the following employees
will constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All nonprofessional employees employed at the Employer's lab-
oratory located at its Detroit, Michigan, refinery excluding all other
employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(4) In all other circumstances, the Employer's laboratory em-
ployees, professional and nonprofessional, shall remain unrepresented.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
Lenox Plastics of P.R ., Inc. and Juana Rodriguez de Garcia and
Angelina Rivera de Pereira . Cases Nos. 24-CA-1124 and 24-CA-
1127. July 13, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 10, 1960, Trial Examiner David London issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also
found that the Respondent had not engaged in other unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that such allega-
tions be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to
the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.'
' We find no merit in the Respondent 's exceptions to the Trial Examiner's finding that
Union de Empleados de Productos Plasticos y otros Similares de P.R ., Independiente, is
a labor organization. The record shows that the aforesaid union was at all times mate-
rial herein a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 ( 5) of the Act.
The General Counsel filed no exception to the Trial Examiner 's recommendation that
the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleged that Respondent discriminated against
Angelina Rivera de Pereira in violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1).
128 NLRB No. 2.
LENOX PLASTICS OF P.R., INC. 43
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members
Bean and Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the entire
record in these cases, including the Intermediate Report, the excep-
tions, and the brief. The Board finds merit in the Respondent's ex-
ceptions and therefore adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclu-
sions, and recommendations only to the extent consistent herewith.
The Trial Examiner found that Juana Rodriguez de Garcia was
denied employment after a leave of absence because she was the wife
of a well-known union leader and because of her union activities.
Mrs. Garcia was employed by the Respondent's predecessor in 1954.
She worked at various jobs in its dinnerware manufacturing plant
including packing, shipping, manufacturing, processing, and, finally,
cleaning and inspection. In August 1958, about 3 months after the
Respondent took over the operation of the plant, Mrs. Garcia's request
for an indefinite leave of absence to care for her child was granted
by Plant Manager Cuevas, who instructed her to return when the
child had recovered. In October 1958, the cleaning and inspection
department, where Mrs. Garcia last worked, was eliminated for eco-
nomic reasons and its 20 employees terminated. In December 1958,
Cuevas was succeeded as plant manager by Alan Cornelius.
On February 16, 1959, Mrs. Garcia visited the plant and informed
the receptionist that she was ready to return to work. Miguel Rivera
Reyes, Respondent's manager of production control and inventories,
saw her in conversation with the receptionist and went in to Cornelius'
office.
Angel Bayon Rodriguez, Respondent's office manager at that time,
testified that on this occasion he overheard Rivera tell Cornelius that
Mrs. Garcia "did not have a chance to work with Lenox because she
was the wife of a union leader," and that Cornelius replied that Rivera
knew more about it than he. About a week after Mrs. Garcia left
her application with the Respondent, she encountered Rivera outside
the plant and he told her that he did not think she would be recalled.
Nine of the twenty employees who were terminated when the cleaning
and inspection department was eliminated have returned to work for
the Respondent, but Mrs. Garcia has not been recalled.
Cornelius admitted that he knew that Mrs. Garcia's husband was a
union leader and that both she and her husband had assisted the
Respondent's employees in organizing a union in the plant, but denied
that,she was refused employment for discriminatory reasons.
44 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We do not agree with the Trial Examiner that the evidence set
forth above, on which he relied, is sufficient to sustain the burden,
which rests upon the General Counsel, of proving that Mrs. Garcia
was denied employment for discriminatory reasons. Thus, the only
testimony of discriminatory motivation is that of Office Manager
Angel Bayon Rodriguez. The Trial Examiner refused to rely on the
testimony given by this witness in support of the allegation that the
discharge of Mrs. Pereira was discriminatory, characterizing Bayon
as biased against the Respondent. Moreover, the evidence of dis-
criminatory motivation to which the witness Bayon testified consists
solely of remarks by Miguel Rivera Reyes. Rivera was the Respond-
ent's production control and inventory manager and was not shown
to have authority to hire employees. Because of this lack of author-
ity, the Trial Examiner refused to rely on a discriminatory remark
made by Rivera with regard to the discharge of Mrs. Pereira. In
addition, there is no evidence that any of the nine employees who
were laid off from the cleaning and inspection department, where Mrs.
Garcia last worked, and who had been rehired, had less seniority than
she, or that any of them were new employees. On the basis of these
facts and the record as a whole, therefore, we find that the preponder-
ance of the evidence fails to establish that the Respondent refused to
rehire Mrs. Garcia because of her union activities. Accordingly, we
find, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that in failing to rehire Juana
Rodriguez de Garcia, the Respondent did not violate Section 8(a) (3)
or (1) of the Act.
We also find that, under all the circumstances of these cases, the
single instance of interrogation of employee Angelina Rivera de
Pereira by Plant Manager Alan Cornelius, in February 1959, did not
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.2
As we have found that the Respondent engaged in no unfair labor
practices, we shall dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
2 Blue Flash Empress, Inc ., 109 NLRB 591.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by the above -named Charging Parties against Lenox
Plastics of P.R ., Inc., herein called Respondent , the General Counsel on July 30,
1959, issued a complaint against Respondent alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1)
and (3 ) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , herein called the Act.
With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint alleges that commencing
on or about February 1, 1959, Respondent assigned production duties to Angelina
Rivera de Pereira, previously employed exclusively as a plant nurse, and on or
about March 19, 1959 , discharged her, because she had aided and assisted the
Union hereafter named in its organizational activities, and because she had engaged
in other concerted activities on behalf of said Union . The complaint further alleged
LENOX PLASTICS OF P.R., INC. 45
that on or about , and since, February 16, 1959, Respondent refused to reemploy
Juana Rodriguez de Garcia because she is the wife of the former leader of a labor
organiaztion , and because Respondent believed she had attempted to form a labor
organization during her tenure of employment with Respondent or its predecessor,
and because she had aided and assisted the Union hereinafter named in its organiza-
tional activities , and engaged in other concerted activities on behalf of the Union.
The complaint also alleges that on or about January 30, 1959, Respondent threatened
an employee with discharge because of her concerted activities on behalf of the
Union hereafter named.
By its answer , Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor practices,
and as an affirmative defense pleaded that Angelina Rivera de Pereira was discharged
on March 19 , 1959, because of the poor quantity and quality of her production work.
With respect to Juana Rodriguez de Garcia , the answer pleaded that she was laid
off on October 12, 1958, with 20 other employees because of the elimination of the
cleaning and inspection department , and because her previous experience showed
she was not suitable for work in either the molding , packing, and shipping depart-
ments, "or, she quit her employment previous to October 12, 1958, because of her
health, or to take care of a newly born grandchild , or because she was only receiving
one or two days of work a week."
Pursuant to notice served on all the parties , a hearing in the above-entitled matter
was held on November 2 to 4, 1959, at Santurce , Puerto Rico, before the duly
designated Trial Examiner . All parties were represented by counsel and were
afforded full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross -examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues. Since the close of the hearing , a brief
has been received from Respondent which has been duly considered . On my observa-
tion of the demeanor of the witnesses , and upon the entire record in the case, I make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Republic
of Panama, and is engaged in the manufacture and sale of melamine dinnerware
with its principal office and place of business at Bayamon , Puerto Rico. During
the 12-month period preceding the filing of the complaint herein , Respondent pur-
chased and caused to be shipped directly into the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
from points and places located within continental United States , goods and materials
valued in excess of $100,000 . During the same period , it sold and caused to be
shipped directly from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to points and places
located within continental United States , goods and products valued in excess of
$100,000. Respondent admits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and ( 7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Union de Empleados de Productos Plasticos y otros Similares de P.R ., Inde-
pendiente , herein called the Union, is, and at all times material herein has been, a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Respondent purchased the business described above from the Hellmich Manu-
facturing Corporation in May 1958 and commenced the operation thereof later
during that year . Hellmich had owned and operated the business since sometime in
June 1953 . When the purchase was made by Respondent , it retained in its employ
all of Hellmich 's employees , supervisors , and management personnel . Harry Cuevas,
who had been plant manager for Hellmich , continued for a short period to be plant
manager for Respondent . He resigned on December 1, 1958, to become the plant
manager of a nearby factory, and was succeeded by Alan Cornelius who also had
previously been employed by Hellmich.
Angelina Rivera de Pereira, hereinafter referred to as Angelina, was employed
by Hellmich on March 11 , 1954, as a nurse. When it was discovered shortly after
she was first employed that her services as a nurse were not required during all the
hours of her workday, she devoted a part of her time to work in the production
department for a period of about 4 weeks. However, from the end of that time
in 1954 until January 1959 , she engaged in no work other than nursing , or in render-
ing first aid.
Following an earlier and apparently unsuccessful attempt in 1957 to organize a
union , Angelina renewed her activities in that direction in January 1959 when a
46 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
number of Respondent's employees came to her with alleged grievances in connec-
tion with their work. Angelina went to the home of Artenuo Garcia Diaz, the
husband of Juana Rodriguez de Garcia, hereafter referred to as Juana and one of
the Charging Parties herein, for help in organizing a union. Diaz, who had served
as president of another Puerto Rico union for 6 or 7 years, bestowed the name of
the union described in paragraph II, above, upon that organization, and gave Angelina,
and about eight other employees of Respondent who met in his home, instructions
as to how to carry on an organization campaign, and prepared application blanks
for membership in that Union. Thereafter, Angelina and Juana visited the homes
of several employees and secured their signatures to such applications.
Cornelius, the newly appointed manager , but who had been employed in the plant
in an executive capacity since November 1956, testified that in January 1959 he was
aware that there was considerable union activity in the plant. At a meeting of
supervisors about that time, he made it unmistakably clear to them that Respondent
"did not want a union in the factory, . that the best way to avoid a union is
to do the best to keep the people happy, listen to their complaints and try to solve
them, and if there was one they could not solve, to tell management about it or
[him]; to be very careful to make no promises or threats, which is against the law."
Angel Bayon Rodriguez, a supervisory bookkeeper then in Respondent's employ
and who attended that meeting, testified that following Cornelius' remarks, Supervisor
Miguel Rivera "suggested that [they] should get Angelina out of the infirmary and
put her in production, and since she was the leader there and made her propaganda
in the infirmary, so as to avoid that, he suggested that she be put in production where
they could see her, and in that way she would not feel satisfied and she would resign
and leave." 1
At an undisclosed date in February 1959, Cornelius came to the infirmary and
asked Angelina whether it was true that she was organizing a union in the plant.
When she answered that it was, Cornelius replied: "If you are organizing a union
now, you go out and make a complaint," snapped his fingers, and left.
About 3 days later, Cornelius called Angelina to his office. At that time, according
to Cornelius' uncontradicted testimony, Angelina "was utilizing about 2 hours [of
the day] in company work." He further testified that "the other six hours she would
sell-stoles and generally goofing around." a Cornelius asked her to help out on
the following day in the shipping and packing department located in a building other
than the one in which the infirmary was located. According to Angelina, she
answered she would "have to think [it] over." When she failed to report at the
shipping and packing department the following morning, Cornelius asked for an
explanation. She replied that because the shipping department was located across
the road from the infirmary and a distance away, she would not be able to render
prompt service in the event any employee required her services in the infirmary.
On the following day, Angelina was assigned to the task of cleaning plastic dishes
manufactured by Respondent. She continued to work in that department for about
3 weeks when she complained to her supervisor "that [cleaning] was not [her] work,
[which] was a nurse." She was then transferred for part-time work to the inspection
department, and later to the sanding department where she worked until March 19,
1959, when she was told she was being discharged because she "did not produce."
The complaint alleges that Respondent assigned production duties to Angelina and
subsequently discharged her, because of her activities in behalf of the Union. The
testimony is undisputed that from the time Respondent acquired the plant in May
1958 until Cornelius took over its management in January 1959, Respondent had
incurred an operating loss of $70,000. It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that
one of the tasks of a new manager would be to reduce operating costs wherever
possible. That Angelina's services as a nurse were not required during her full 8-hour
working day was not challenged by the General Counsel. Nor is any claim made
that after Angelina was instructed to be in the infirmary only from 7 to 8 a.m. and
1 Rodriguez' testimony quoted in the text was elicited on cross-examination. In his
direct testimony, he had testified that Rivera suggested that the best way to keep the
Union from coming into the plant "was to put Angelina in production and in that way,
since her duties had always been as a nurse, would be obliged to resign and leave',
I credit the version elicited on cross-examination Rodriguez had been discharged by
Respondent in April 1959 and at the time of the hearing had litigation pending against
Respondent. I am convinced that his bias against Respondent influenced his recitals of
what actually was said at the meeting.
2 Angelina admitted she made stoles in the infirmary and sold them to other employees.
I do not credit her testimony that she did this only during the lunch hour , or on her
"own time."
LENOX PLASTICS OF P.R., INC. 47
from 3 to 4 p .m .3 with the remainder of her time to be devoted eslewhere in produc-
tion work , the two hourly periods were not sufficient to take care of the nursing needs
of Respondent 's employees.
No claim is made that Angelina suffered any loss of pay by the various assign-
ments made to her, or that the work was too onerous for her to perform . Carmen
Margarita Centeno , the nurse employed by Hellmich before Angelina was employed,
spent more time at work in the production department than she did as a nurse. The
same is true with respect to Ana Luisa Colon , the nurse who succeeded Angelina.
Angelina, however , seemed to be obsessed with the notion that because she had
been hired as, or was, a nurse, she could not be required to work in production.
She retained this conviction until long after her discharge . Thus, in August 1959,
when she filed her claim for unemployment compensation with the Puerto Rico
Department of Labor, she gave the following reason for her unemployment:
"Because my work is as a nurse , I do not want to work in [sic] the machines."
What contractual rights she may have had in this respect , if any, is no concern of
mine. My only function and responsibility on this phase of the case is to determine
whether she was assigned to production work, and subsequently discharged, for
the reasons alleged in the complaint.
To ascertain the motive that prompted Respondent to assign part-time duty in
production to Angelina requires consideration of all the precipitating circumstances.
On the record as a whole, I am unable to conclude that Respondent violated the
Act by the various work assignments made to Angelina. Had these assignments
been too onerous , or had she suffered a diminution in pay, following which she
would voluntarily have left Respondent's employment, the question of whether or
not she had thereby been constructively discharged would be presented. But no such
contention is, or can be , made here because Angelina continued in Respondent's
employ in positions , to which Respondent , insofar as the record before me discloses,
had a right to assign her.
Nor can I make the findings sought by the General Counsel with respect to these
assignments because they may have been made pursuant to Rivera 's suggestion
heretofore found. Though an aura of suspicion may be aroused by the fact that
these assignments began shortly after Cornelius' interrogation of Angelina concerning
her union activities and the sentiments expressed at the meeting of supervisors as
heretofore found, a finding of discrimination cannot be based on suspicion. Out-
weighing these suspicious circumstances is the undisputed testimony that Respondent
had incurred an operating loss of $70,000 in the preceding 6 or 7 months . In that
state of the record, Cornelius, the newly appointed manager, would indeed have
been derelict in the performance of his duty to Respondent had he not made full
company use of every hour for which every employee, including Angelina, was being
paid . In fact, shortly after entering on his new post, Cornelius gave such instructions
to Plant Superintendent Rafael Gutierrez. Nothing is more settled in labor law
than the the right of an employer to insist that his employees, regardless of how
active they may be in their union activities , devote all of their working time to the
work of their employer.
Finally, if Respondent was then desirous of completely ridding itself of Angelina,
Cornelius had a splendid opportunity to do so when she arbitrarily refused her first
assignment to the shipping and production department . Not only did Respondent
fail to avail itself of that opportunity to discharge her, but it thereafter tried her out
in three other departments, in all of which she failed to give satisfactory performance,
before discharging her as hereafter detailed.
On the entire record I find that the General Counsel has failed to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that Respondent assigned production duties to
Angelina because of her union activities . I shall, therefore , recommend that the
portion of the complaint charging that those assignments were unlawfully made
be dismissed.
Turning now to the reason for Angelina's discharge on March 19, the record
establishes that her performance in all phases of production work to which she
was assigned was unsatisfactory. That this was due in substantial part to the per-
sistent belief that her services should only be utilized as a nurse may reasonably be
inferred . Some of her poor performance may also have been caused by her age,
she being "the oldest in the department ," or by her admitted failure to "understand
how to do" the simple work to which she was assigned . Whatever the reason, the
record establishes that her production in the sanding department , in which she was
last engaged , was exceedingly low. Thus, the number of "pieces produced" by her,
per hour, in the period March 2 to 18, 1959, was substantially less than that of the
8 A notice to this effect was posted in the plant.
48 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
others engaged in the same task, and was less than half what her successor nurse
produced per hour, shortly thereafter.
In any event, the burden does not rest upon Respondent to establish a just or
nondiscriminatory reason for Angelina's discharge. The burden of proving that
she was discharged for the reasons alleged in the complaint rests upon the General
Counsel, and I am convinced that it has not been sustained herein. In this con-
nection, it should again be noted that if Respondent had been desirous of discharging
her in order to discourage her union activities it had the opportunity to do so early
in February when she refused to accept the first assignment made to her by Cornelius.
On the entire record I find that Angelina was not discharged on March 19 for the
reasons alleged in the complaint and shall, therefore, recommend that these allega-
tions also be dismissed .4
Juana Rodriguez de Garcia
Juana was employed in the plant from October 12, 1954, until August 21, 1958,
during which period she worked in practically every department. On August 21,
1958, her son became seriously ill and she asked for, and obtained, a leave of
absence from Cuevas so that she could take care of her child. Cuevas placed no
time limit on her leave but instructed her to return when her son had recovered.
On February 16, 1959, when Juana went to Respondent's office reception room
and told Miss Santiago, the secretary who greeted her, that she was coming back
to work, she was informed that she would have to file an application form for
employment. While waiting for Miss Santiago to get the application, Miguel Rivera
came into the reception room and "seemed suprised" to see her. She observed him
going into an adjoining office then occupied by Cornelius and separated only by a
glass partition from where Juana was standing. She saw Rivera engage Cornelius
in conversation during the course of which Cornelius turned to look at Juana. She
filled out the application and left it with Miss Santiago.
Angel Bayon Rodriguez, the office manager who occupied a desk approximately
18 feet distant from Cornelius, testified that during the conversation between Cor-
nelius and Rivera described above he overheard Rivera tell Cornelius that Juana
"did not have a chance to work with Lenox because she was the wife of the union
leader," and that Cornelius replied that Rivera knew more about that than he.
Though both Cornelius and Rivera were asked by Respondent's counsel whether
they made the remarks attributed to them by the office manager, they entered no
direct denial thereof, but contented themselves with the mere failure to "recall"
or "remember" making any such statements. Cornelius testified directly, however,
that "it was well known that Juana was the wife of the president of the union that
was active in the . . . area" in which the plant was located, and that he was aware
of rumors in the plant that Juana "was interested in union activities." On the above
testimony, and the demeanor of the witnesses as they testified, I credit the testimony
of Angel Bayon Rodriguez as above reported.
After Juana left the application with Miss Santiago, she went into the factory,
told Angelina about her application, and asked Angelina to let her know when
Juana would be returned to work. About a week later, Juana met Rivera while
on her way to the factory. When she told him that she had been informed Respond-
ent was hiring women who had never before worked in the factory while she had
not been recalled, he replied that he did not think she would ever be recalled.
Juana has never been recalled to work.
Respondent, in its answer to the complaint, pleaded that Juana was laid off on
October 12, 1958, with 20 other employees, because of the elimination of the cleaning
and inspection department, and because her previous experience showed that she
was not suitable for work in any other department, "or she quit her employment
previous to October 12, 1958, because of her health, or to take care of a newly
born grandchild, or because she was only receiving one or two days of work a week."
No credible evidence was offered that "Juana quit her employment" at any time
during 1958 for the reasons pleaded, or for any other reason. Instead, the record
establishes conclusively that she was granted a leave of absence on August 21 of
that year as heretofore found. And while the record establishes that Respondent
4In arriving at this conclusion I have not been unmindful of the testimony of Harry
Cuevas, no longer employed by Respondent, that Miguel Rivera told him at an undisclosed
date after Angelina's discharge that she had been fired "because df the Union." Though
this testimony stands undenied on the record, I cannot give it controlling effect The
record discloses that Angelina was discharged by Plant Superintendent Gutierrez and
Assistant Manager Seltzer after an examination of her production records, and fails to
disclose that Rivera had anything to do with her termination.
LENOX PLASTICS OF P.R., INC. 49
eliminated its cleaning and inspection department on October 12, 1958 , and termi-
nated the services of 20 women engaged in that department, it also establishes
that Respondent rehired at least 9 of these same women prior to March 26, 1959.
Cornelius also conceded that it is possible that an additional number of the em-
ployees laid off on October 12 may have been recalled after March 26, 1959.
Juana had never been reprimanded during the entire period of her employment
of approximately 4 years, during which time she worked in almost every depart-
ment. Cuevas, plant manager during the entire period of Juana's employment,
testified credibly that this diversity of service was "because of her efficiency, .. .
that she did very good work," and that if he had still been plant manager when
Juana asked to be returned to work he would have been happy to place her in
any department.
On the entire record I find that Juana was denied employment on February 16,
1959, because she was the wife of a well-known union leader and because of her
union activities. By doing so, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec-
tion with its operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Juana Rodriguez de Garcia was discriminatorily discharged, I
recommend that, in order to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act, Respond-
ent offer her immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equiva-
lent position, without prejudice to her seniority and other rights and privileges. It
is also recommended that Respondent make her whole for any loss of pay she may
have suffered by reason of its discrimination against her by payment to her of a sum
of money equal to the amount she would normally have earned as wages from the
date of the discrimination against her to the date of Respondent's offer of reinstate-
ment, less her net earnings during that period. Loss of pay shall be computed in
accordance with the formula described by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289. It is recommended that Respondent, upon request, make available
to the Board and its agents all payroll and other records pertinent to an analysis
of the amount due as backpay.
Since the violations of the Act which Respondent has committed are related to
other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act and the danger of their commission
in the future is reasonably to be anticipated by its past conduct, the preventive
purposes of the Act may be thwarted unless the recommendations are coextensive
with the threat. To effectuate the policies of the Act, therefore, it is recommended
that Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights
guaranteed by the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
2. Union de Empleados de Productos y otros Similares de P.R., Independiente, is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discrimination in regard to hire and tenure of employment of Juana Rod-
riguez de Garcia, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, Re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
4. By interrogating its employees concerning their union activities, Respondent
violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. Respondent did not violate the Act by the various work assignments to, or in
discharging, Angelina Rivera de Pereira.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]