Pan Ameican Grain Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 29, 2005

346 N.L.R.B. 193 (N.L.R.B. 2005)

PAN AMERICAN GRAIN CO.
346 NLRB No. 21
193
Pan American Grain Co., Inc. and Pan American
Grain Manufacturing Co., Inc. and Congreso de
Uniones Industriales de Puerto Rico. Case 24–
CA–10014
December 30, 2005
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN AND
SCHAUMBER
On August 26, 2005, Administrative Law Judge Mi-
chael A. Marcionese issued the attached decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and
the General Counsel filed an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has considered
the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, find-
ings, and conclusions and to adopt the recommended
Order.1
We agree with the judge that, in view of the number,
variety, and seriousness of the Respondent’s unfair labor
practices in this and other cases, it is appropriate to issue
a broad remedial order.2 Therefore, we shall order the
Respondent to cease and desist from refusing to provide
relevant information requested by the Union (here, em-
ployee census information) and interfering with its em-

1 In the absence of exceptions, we adopt the judge’s finding that the
Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing, since
August 17, 2004, to provide requested relevant information to the Un-
ion.
2 See Pan American Grain Co., 343 NLRB 205 (2004) (bypassing
the Union and dealing directly with employees regarding their terms
and conditions of employment; unilaterally implementing procedures
for employees to request training on its production equipment; unilater-
ally establishing a ban on use of cell phones/beepers in the workplace;
failing and refusing to include certain employees in the bargaining unit
represented by the Union and to deduct their union dues; unilaterally
changing the job classifications and reducing the wages of certain em-
ployees, and unilaterally changing the work schedule of an employee in
contravention of his seniority rights; failing to pay certain unit employ-
ees a contractually required annual payment of $500; assigning bar-
gaining unit work to nonunit employees; refusing to provide the Union
with requested relevant and necessary information; interfering with the
employees’ Section 7 rights by telling them that the Union was bank-
rupt, that filing grievances was a futile gesture, and by suggesting that
employees abandon the Union); Pan American Grain Co., 343 NLRB
318 (2004) (withholding accrued vacation benefits from one unit em-
ployee, and discontinuing payments to the medical plans of two unit
employees who were on medical leave, all because the employees
joined or assisted the Union and engaged in concerted activities, includ-
ing a strike; implementing the February 27 layoff without giving the
Union adequate notice and reasonable opportunity to bargain; reducing
the wages of returning strikers, treating the returning strikers as new
hires, and denying them reinstatement to their previous positions or
substantially equivalent positions when such positions became avail-
able after the employees made their unconditional offer to return to
work; failing and refusing to comply with the Union’s request to fur-
nish relevant and necessary information).
ployees’ exercise of Section 7 rights “in any other man-
ner.” Such broad injunctive relief is appropriate “when a
respondent is shown to have a proclivity to violate the
Act or has engaged in such egregious or widespread mis-
conduct as to demonstrate a general disregard for the
employees’ fundamental statutory rights.” Hickmott
Foods, 242 NLRB 1357, 1357 (1979).3
We find that the Respondent has demonstrated a pro-
clivity to violate the Act, not just Section 8(a)(5), as here,
but also the Act as a whole.4 Further, the Respondent has
repeatedly disregarded its obligation to provide relevant
information sought by the Union. As shown above, this
is the third time in a 5-year period that the Respondent
has unlawfully refused to provide relevant information.
In this instance, the Respondent made no good-faith
effort to respond to the information request. Instead, it
dismissively instructed the Union to obtain the informa-
tion from the General Counsel, referring to employee
census information it had provided, in response to a sub-
poena, in conjunction with prior litigation. Control Ser-
vices, 314 NLRB 421, 421 (1994); Grinnell Fire Protec-
tion Systems Co., 335 NLRB 473, 473 (2001), enfd.
mem. 2001 WL 34041228 (10th Cir. 2001). Moreover,
the Respondent neither claimed nor demonstrated that
any information still in possession of the General Coun-
sel would have been accurate and current in 2004, when
the Union made the instant information request, or that it
would have been in a reasonably accessible form. The
Union is entitled to updated addresses and phone num-
bers, which may well have changed since the information
was previously furnished. Watkins Contracting, Inc.,
335 NLRB 222 fn. 1 (2001); Long Island Day Care Ser-
vices, 303 NLRB 112, 130 (1991).
Accordingly, we adopt the judge’s findings and rec-
ommended remedial order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, Pan American Grain Co.,

3 King Soopers, 344 NLRB 842 fn. 3 (2005), cited by the Respon-
dent, is distinguishable. In that case, the respondent had an arguably
meritorious reason for failing to comply with specific union informa-
tion requests, and it had a substantial history of voluntary compliance
with information requests. Member Liebman dissented in King Soop-
ers and would have granted a broad order. Id.
4 In joining his colleagues in issuing a broad order, Member
Schaumber agrees, as the cases in fn. 2, supra, reflect, that the Respon-
dent has engaged in a widespread and persistent pattern of attempts, by
varying methods, to interfere with legislatively protected rights, and
that this pattern of conduct demonstrates a general disregard for funda-
mental statutory rights and raises the threat of continuing and varying
efforts to frustrate those rights in the future. Cf. Postal Service, 345
NLRB 409, 412–415 (2005) (Member Schaumber dissenting).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD194
Inc., and Pan American Grain Manufacturing Co., Inc.,
Guayanbo, Puerto Rico, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order.
Miguel Nieves-Mojica, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Ruperto J. Robles, Esq., for the Respondent.
BENCH DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MICHAEL A. MARCIONESE, Administrative Law Judge. I
heard this case in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on August 3, 2005.
The charge in this case was filed by Congreso de Uniones In-
dustriales de Puerto Rico, the Union, on January 12, 2005. On
April 29, 2005, the complaint and notice of hearing issued al-
leging that Pan American Grain Co., Inc. and Pan American
Grain Manufacturing Co., Inc., collectively referred to as the
Respondent, violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by fail-
ing and refusing to furnish the Union, upon request, with in-
formation that is necessary for, and relevant to, the Union’s
performance of its duties as exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of a unit of the Respondent’s employees. The
particular information at issue is the names, date of birth, civil
status, and gender of the Respondent’s unit employees, which it
is alleged the Union requested to determine the cost of provid-
ing medical plan coverage for the Respondent’s unit employ-
ees.
On May 13, 2005, the Respondent filed its answer to the
complaint admitting many of the allegations but denying that
the requested information was relevant and necessary and deny-
ing that it had failed and refused to furnish any information to
the Union. The Respondent also denied committing any unfair
labor practice. The Respondent raised several affirmative de-
fenses in its answer, including that the Respondent had satisfied
all its obligations to the Union, and that it had bargained with
the Union concerning implementation of a medical plan.
After hearing the testimony of witnesses called by both
sides, reviewing the documentary evidence, and considering the
arguments of counsel, I rendered a decision from the bench
pursuant to Section 102.35(a)(10) of the NLRB’s Rules and
Regulations. For the reasons stated by me on the record at the
close of the hearing, I found that the Respondent violated the
Act as alleged in the complaint.
I hereby certify the accuracy of that portion of the transcript,
pages 63 through 76, containing my bench decision. A copy of
that portion of the transcript, as corrected, is attached hereto as
“Appendix A.”1
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, Pan American Grain Co., Inc. and Pan
American Grain Manufacturing Co., Inc., is a single employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act.
2. Congreso de Uniones Industriales de Puerto Rico is a la-
bor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

1 I shall correct the transcript at two places: At L. 5 on p. 64, “rela-
tive” should be “relevant” and at L. 14 on p. 69, “8(e)” should be
“8(d).”
3. The following employees of the Respondent, herein called
the Unit, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
INCLUDED:
All production and maintenance employees employed by the
Respondent at Industrial Amelia, Pier A, Army terminal and
Romana and at the Industrial Corujo plant in Bayamon.
EXCLUDED:
All other employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
4. At all times since June 11, 1987, based on Section 9(a) of
the Act, the Union has been the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the unit.
5. By failing and refusing, since August 17, 2004, to furnish
the Union with the information requested in the Union’s letters
dated August 17, September 8, and October 5, 2004, the Re-
spondent has failed and refused to bargain in good faith and has
engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act. I shall recommend specifically that
the Respondent be ordered to furnish the information requested
by the Union within 14 days of entry of a final order in this
case and that it post a notice to employees in English and Span-
ish.
Because the Respondent has a proclivity for violating the
Act,2 and in particular for refusing to furnish relevant and nec-
essary information to this Union, I find it necessary to issue a
broad Order requiring the Respondent to cease and desist from
infringing in any other manner on rights guaranteed employees
by Section 7 of the Act. Hickmott Foods, 242 NLRB 1357
(1979). Accord: Postal Service, 339 NLRB 1162, 1163 (2003).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended3
ORDER
The Respondent, Pan American Grain Co., Inc. and Pan
American Grain Manufacturing Co., Inc., Guaynabo, Puerto
Rico, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to furnish Congreso de Uniones In-
dustriales de Puerto Rico, upon request, with information that is
necessary for, and relevant to, the Union’s performance of its

2 See, e.g., Pan American Grain Co., 343 NLRB 205, and Pan
American Grain Co., 343 NLRB 318.
3 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
PAN AMERICAN GRAIN CO. 195
duties as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
the following unit of employees:
All production and maintenance employees employed by the
Respondent at Industrial Amelia, Pier A, Army terminal and
Romana and at the Industrial Corujo plant in Bayamon; but
excluding all other employees, guards and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or co-
ercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them
by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive rep-
resentative of the employees in the unit described above con-
cerning terms and conditions of employment and, if an under-
standing is reached, embody the understanding in a signed
agreement.
(b) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, pro-
vide the Union with a current census showing the name, date of
birth, civil status, and gender of the Respondent’s unit employ-
ees.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cilities in Guaynabo, Puerto Rico, and Bayamon, Puerto Rico,
copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix B”4 in both
English and Spanish. Copies of the notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 24, after being signed by
the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by
the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in con-
spicuous places including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the
pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of
business or closed any of the facilities involved in these pro-
ceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own
expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and for-
mer employees employed by the Respondent at any time since
August 17, 2004.
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent has taken to comply.
APPENDIX A
00063
JUDGE MARCIONESE: Good afternoon, everyone. Okay. As
I indicated before we went off the record, I have decided
that this case is appropriate for an issuance of a bench
decision, and now that I’ve had a chance to look over my

4 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
notes and consider the arguments that have been raised by the
parties, I am prepared to render my decision.
MR. NIEVES-MOJICA: Your Honor—
JUDGE MARCIONESE: Yes.
MR. NIEVES-MOJICA: —before you go on, I just wanted
to, to refer to something in my closing statement. I
mentioned the fact that we were requesting as part of the
remedy a posting of a notice, and it should be noted that the
notice should be in the English and Spanish languages as the
employees’ main language is the Spanish language.
JUDGE MARCIONESE: Okay. I’ll include that as part of
your closing argument.
MR. NIEVES-MOJICA: Thank you, Your Honor.
JUDGE MARCIONESE: Okay. Now again as with all
decisions, pursuant to the rules and regulations, there are
certain elements that must be contained in the decision. So
I will, you know, begin at the beginning.
The charge in this case was filed by the Union, Congreso
de Uniones Industriales de Puerto Rico, on January 12, 2005,
and on April 29, 2005, the Complaint and Notice of Hearing
issued alleging that Pan American Grain Company, Inc. and
Pan
00064
American Grain Manufacturing Company, Inc., collectively
referred to as the Respondent, violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(5) of the Act, by failing and refusing to furnish the Union,
upon request, with information that is necessary for and
relevantive to the Union’s performance of its duties as
exclusive collective bargaining representative of the unit of
the Respondent’s employees.
The particular information at issue in this case is the
names, date of birth, civil status, and that refers to
whether someone is married, single, has children, and gender
of the Respondent’s unit employees which is alleged that the
Union had requested in order to determine the cost of
providing medical coverage for the Respondent’s unit
employees.
Respondent filed an answer to that Complaint on May 13,
2005, admitting many of the allegations but denying that the
requested information was relevant or necessary and denying
that the Respondent had failed and refused to furnish any
information to the Union. The Respondent also generally
denied committing an unfair labor practice and raised several
affirmative defenses in its answer, including that the
Respondent had satisfied all its obligations to the Union,
specifically that it had bargained concerning implementation
of a medical plan, that the Respondent again in its
affirmative defenses claimed that the information was not
00065
relevant or necessary, and that it had in fact provided the
information.
Now having heard the testimony of the witnesses, seeing
the documents that have been proffered by the General
Counsel, and the Respondent has not offered any documents, I
am now prepared to render my decision pursuant to Section
102.35(a)(10) of the NLRB’s Rules and Regulations.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD196
With respect to jurisdiction, the Complaint alleges, the
Respondent admits, and I find that Pan American Grain and
Pan American Grain Manufacturing Company, are Puerto Rico
corporations with a principal office at EO. Amelia, Guaynado,
Puerto Rico, referred as to the Arroz Rico facility, other
facilities located at the Amelia Industrial Park in Guaynado,
and the Corujo Industrial Park in Bayamon, where it’s engaged
in the importation, manufacture and sale of grain, animal
feeds and related products and the processing of rice.
It is also admitted, and I find that the Respondent, in
conducting its business operations, has purchased and
received at its Puerto Rico facilities in the past 12 months,
goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points
outside the Commonwealth.
The Respondent further admits that all times material to
the Complaint, the two corporations have been affiliated
business enterprises with common offices, ownership,
directors, managers and supervision, have formulated and
00066
administered a common labor policy affecting employees of the
operation, have shared common premises and facilities, and
provided services for each other, have interchanged personnel
and have held themselves out to the public as a single
integrated business enterprise.
Although the Respondent has denied that the two entities
made sales to each other, it has admitted in its answer that
by virtue of the operations described, the two enterprises do
constitute a single integrated business enterprise and a
single Employer within the meaning of the Act.
Therefore, based on the undisputed facts and the
admissions of the Respondent, I find and conclude that the
Respondent is a single Employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Sections 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act, and
based on the Respondent’s admission, I also find that the
Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
Now turning to the specific unfair labor practice
alleged in the Complaint, most of the facts with respect to
the request for information have been admitted. The
Respondent admits at least to the underlying element of
Section 8(a)(5) charge, namely that the unit consisting of
all production and maintenance employees employed by the
Respondent at Industrial Amelia, Pier A, Army Terminal and
Romana and at the Industrial Corujo Plant in Bayamon,
00067
excluding all other employees, guards and supervisors as
defined by the Act, that that is a unit appropriate for
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act, and the Respondent indicated that
the Union, since June 11, 1987, has been the exclusive
collective bargaining representative of the employees within
that unit within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
The Respondent also admitted that the Union did make a
request by letters dated August 17, September 8 and October
5, 2004, but as noted previously, denied that the information
was relevant or necessary or that it failed to provide it.
Now the testimony and the letters in evidence establish
the testimony of Mr. Figueroa, the President of the Union,
that the Union, in fact, in those letters on August 17,
September 8 and October 5, requested a census of the
employees in the bargaining unit, and by census, Mr. Figueroa
has explained that he was requesting specifically name, date
of birth, civil status and gender, and for the purpose of
using that census in order to obtain quotes from various
insurance carriers for a medical plan to cover the bargaining
unit employees. If there was any question as to the reason
the Union sought the information, the Union clarified and
explain its need, in the second letter that it sent to the
Employer on September 8, specifically telling the Employer
that the purpose was to obtain quotes for a medical plan.

00068
Now the only response in evidence from the Employer to
these specific requests was the one letter dated September
21, which provided the census date for only three individuals
named in that letter, while advising the Union that the
census had not suffered any changes, but it did not
specifically provide the information as of that date for
those employees in the bargaining unit that was specifically
sought by the Union. And, also the only other response
that’s apparent in the evidence and the testimony here to
these requests from the Union, was the undisputed statement
from Mr. Juarbe, the Human Resources Director for the
Respondent, to Mr. Figueroa, that if he wanted this
information, he should go to the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board and request it because all of
the information had previously been provided to the General
Counsel.
Now the testimony establishes though that that
information provided to the General Counsel was furnished
pursuant to a subpoena in another unfair labor practice case
several years before the current information request, and
even if Mr. Figueroa had taken Mr. Juarbe up on that
suggestion and gone to the General Counsel, there’s no
showing in this record that the information he would have
been able to obtain from the General Counsel would in fact
have been current, up-to-date census data that he could have
00069
used in order to obtain quotes for a medical plan to cover
the bargaining unit employees. And, moreover, it appears
that the in that was furnished to the General Counsel was in
the nature of personnel files of unit employees and striker
replacements, and it would have required the Union in essence
to have gone through whatever information that General
Counsel had retained from that unfair labor practice
proceeding in order to pull together the information that it
needed to perform its duties in representing the bargaining
unit employees.
The law with respect to an Employer’s duties to bargain
with the Union and furnish information is fairly well
established. The duty to bargain in good faith under Section
8(d) of the Act, includes the duty to furnish the employees’
bargaining representative upon request, with information
relevant to and necessary for the performance of the Union’s
PAN AMERICAN GRAIN CO. 197
statutory duty as the employee’s bargaining representative.
In NLRB v. Acme Industrial Company, 385 U.S. 432, the Su-
preme Court stated that the duty to furnish information extends
not only during a period of time when the parties are collective
bargaining but during the term of the contract, and the Court
upheld the Board’s liberal discovery type standard for
determining when information is relevant, and that case goes
back to 1967.
It has also been well established and the Board has
00070
adhered to it over the years, that certain information,
particularly names, addresses of employees, information
concerning their wages and other terms and conditions of
employment is presumptively relevant. In addition to the
cases that have been cited by counsel for the General
Counsel, Curtiss-Wright Corporation v. NLRB, at 347 F.2d 61
at page 69, a 1965 Third Circuit case, and Ohio Power
Corporation, 216 NLRB 987 at page 991, a 1975 case, show
how long, 30, 40 years, the Board has followed the policy and
the law that essentially this information is presumptively
relevant, and what the Board has essentially said is that in
order to avoid turning over information and rebut the
presumption, a Respondent would have to show that the
information plainly appears irrelevant, and NLRB v. Yawman
and Erbe Manufacturing Company, 187 F.2d 947, at page 949,
from the Second Circuit in 1951, described the relative
burden of establishing that information related to name and
wage and other terms and conditions of employment is not
presumptively relevant.
Now the General Counsel in his closing argument referred
to issues such as confidentiality, or when you’re talking
about striker replacements, the danger or the threats to the
employee about disclosing their names and addresses and what
the burden is, I really did not hear any evidence from the
Respondent in this case, even suggesting that that was any
00071
reason for not turning over the information. Certainly the
Respondent in response to the request from Mr. Figueroa never
stated that it was not turning over any of this information
because it had concerns for either the privacy of the
individuals whose names and information was being sought,
confidentiality of the information, concerns about their
safety. The only thing that Respondent ever said to the
Union is you already have this information, or you can get it
from the General Counsel. So those cases while they’re
applicable to the decision and, you know, certainly are not
applicable since there is no defense of that nature that has
been raised here, and certainly no evidence in this record
suggesting that there would be any safety, confidentiality or
privilege concerns to disclosing the information that the
Union requested. And as I indicated previously, the name,
date of birth, the civil status of the individuals and their
gender, clearly relates to their terms and conditions of
employment since it is undisputed that that is the type of
information that an insurance company would be looking at in
order to put together a quote for a medical plan to cover the
employee. So the Respondent having shown no other basis for
why that information was not presumptively relevant, I must
conclude that the Union was entitled to it, and that the
Respondent’s failure to provide it did not satisfy its duty
to bargain, and therefore violated Section 8(a)(5) of the

00072
Act.
And again, with respect to the alternative means that
were offered, those do not satisfy the burden that was on the
Respondent to comply with its bargaining obligation because
it is not good faith to tell a Union, the information is in
the possession of the General Counsel, go through their
files, go through their papers and get whatever you need,
when information, the specific information sought here was
readily available to the Respondent and could easily have
been provided, and there’s certainly no suggestion that it
was otherwise.
So based on the testimony and the evidence that I’ve
heard here and well established Board law, I find that the
General Counsel has alleged in the Complaint that the
Respondent did, in fact, violate Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act, by failing and refusing to furnish the Union with
the census data that it had requested in letters beginning on
August 17 of 2004.
Also, too, I will note in reaching my conclusion, the
Respondent, as an affirmative defense, had suggested that the
parties had bargained about medical insurance and therefore
the Union didn’t need the information, but there’s no
evidence in this record before me that that subject had
either been agreed to or that the parties were at impasse on
the subject of medical plan to cover the employees, and at
00073
least from what information is available in this record, it
appears the parties are still bargaining. No final agreement
has been reached on a collective bargaining agreement. The
subject of medical insurance for unit employees is apparently
still on the table. So the Union would still need the
information in order to put together any sort of counter
proposal to whatever plan the Respondent was proposing to put
into effect to cover the unit employees. Certainly, nothing
has been shown to the contrary. So clearly it’s still
relevant and necessary to the Union’s performing its
statutory duty.
Now having found that the Respondent violated the Act as
alleged, I turn now to the remedy.
The General Counsel has asked for a standard cease and
desist order, which I will recommend, that the Respondent
essentially be ordered to cease and desist from failing and
refusing to provide the Union with any information, that is
relevant to and necessary for the performance of its
statutory collective bargaining duties.
As an affirmative remedy, the General Counsel has asked
that the Respondent be ordered to furnish the information,
and I will recommend that the Respondent furnish that
information within 14 days of a Board order or final order in
this case, and also a notice posting, and I will also
recommend that the customary notice to employees be posted at
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD198
00074
locations where the Respondent customarily posts notices to
employees and that those notices be in English and Spanish so
that all employees will be able to read and understand them.
Now in addition, the General Counsel has put into the
record and asked me to take administrative notice of two
prior cases involving the Respondent, and these cases involve
the very same bargaining unit that’s at issue here. And
during the break, I did take a look at those two cases, and
in those cases, the Board adopted ALJ findings that the
Respondent had committed several Section 8(a)(5) violations
including, in particular, previous refusals to furnish
information similar to the information requested here. In
that case, it was the names of strike replacements.
In light of the Respondent’s history of violating the
Act, and particularly Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, and
apparent proclivity to commit this type of violation,
although the General Counsel has not requested it, I shall
recommend to the Board that it issue a broad order in this
case, rather than the usual like and related matter. And,
essentially what that means is that the Respondent will be
ordered not only to cease and desist from failing and
refusing to furnish information, but in any other matter
violating the National Labor Relations Act. And I’ll cite
U.S. Postal Service, a NLRB decision at 339 NLRB 150, where
the Board granted a broad order even when it had not been
00075
requested by the General Counsel, in a similar case where
there was a history of a Respondent failing and refusing to
furnish the Union with information, be it for its bargaining
obligations.
All right. Anything—I’ve concluded my decision.
Anything from the parties?
MR. NIEVES-MOJICA: Not on our behalf, Your Honor.
MR. ROBLES: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE MARCIONESE: Now what I will do, I’ll refer you to
the Board’s Rules and Regulations. Upon receipt of the
transcript in this proceeding, I will promptly issue a
certification of those pages of the transcript that contains
the bench decision that I have just rendered. That will also
include the notice that I am recommending be posted as well
as the recommended order. From that point— and that will
be served on all parties. From that point, all parties have
the right to file exceptions with the National Labor
Relations Board in Washington to any portion of my decision
and to any rulings that I’ve made in the course of this
hearing. I will refer you to the Board’s Rules and
Regulations and the Statement of Standard Procedures for how
to go about filing exceptions and briefs with the Board in
Washington.
If there’s nothing further, then this hearing is closed.
Thank you all very much for the orderly presentation of the
00076
evidence.
MR. NIEVES-MOJICA: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. ROBLES: Thank you, Your Honor.
(Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the hearing in the above-entitled
matter was closed.)
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to furnish Congreso de Uniones
Industriales de Puerto Rico, upon request, with information that
is necessary for, and relevant to, the Union’s performance of its
duties as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
the following unit of our employees:
All production and maintenance employees employed by the
Respondent at Industrial Amelia, Pier A, Army terminal and
Romana and at the Industrial Corujo plant in Bayamon; but
excluding all other employees, guards and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Union and put in writ-
ing and sign any agreement reached on terms and conditions of
employment for our employees in the bargaining unit.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order,
provide the Union with a current census showing the name,
date of birth, civil status and gender of all employees in the
unit.
PAN AMERICAN GRAIN CO., INC. AND PAN AMERICAN
GRAIN MANUFACTURING CO., INC.