Publi-Inversiones de Puerto Rico, Inc. d/b/a El Vocero de Puerto Rico

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 10, 2017

365 NLRB No. 29 (N.L.R.B. 2017)

365 NLRB No. 29
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
Publi-Inversiones De Puerto Rico, Inc. d/b/a El
Vocero De Puerto Rico and Union De Periodis-
tas, Artes Graficas Yramas Anexas, Local
33225. Case 12–CA–120344
March 10, 2017
DECISION AND ORDER
BY ACTING CHAIRMAN MISCIMARRA AND MEMBERS
PEARCE AND MCFERRAN
On September 27, 2016, Administrative Law Judge
Melissa M. Olivero issued the attached decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the
General Counsel and the Charging Party filed answering
briefs, and the Respondent filed a reply 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,1 and conclusions2 and to adopt the recommended
Order as modified and set forth in full below.3

1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis-
trative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponder-
ance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect.
Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188
F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and
find no basis for reversing the findings.
In addition, some of the Respondent’s exceptions allege that the
judge’s rulings, findings, and conclusions demonstrate bias and preju-
dice. On careful examination of the judge’s decision and the entire
record, we are satisfied that the Respondent’s contentions are without
merit.
There are no exceptions to the judge’s findings that the Respond-
ent’s editors are not statutory supervisors, that the Respondent’s adver-
tising salespersons and security guards are excluded from the unit, that
an employee laid off by CIN (Respondent’s predecessor) shortly before
it ceased operations but hired by the Respondent as soon as it began
operations is included in the unit, and that the Union’s December 17,
2013 letter constituted an effective demand for recognition and bargain-
ing.
In adopting the judge’s finding that the Respondent is a legal succes-
sor to CIN under NLRB v. Burns International Security Services, Inc.,
406 U.S. 272 (1972), and Fall River Dyeing & Finishing Corp. v.
NLRB, 482 U.S. 27 (1987), we do not rely on her statements suggesting
that a finding of successorship depended on the Respondent hiring “a
substantial and representative complement of CIN’s employees.” The
Respondent was a legal successor because there was substantial conti-
nuity between the enterprises, and it employed a substantial and repre-
sentative complement of employees by December 15, 2013, a majority
of whom were former CIN bargaining-unit employees. In adopting the
judge’s finding that the Respondent is the legal successor to CIN, Act-
ing Chairman Miscimarra does not rely on GVS Properties, LLC, 362
NLRB No. 194 (2015), cited by the judge.
The Respondent filed bare exceptions, asserting that the judge erred
by finding that it violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, Publi-Inversiones de Puerto Rico,
Inc. d/b/a El Vocero de Puerto Rico, is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Union de Periodistas, Artes Graficas y Ramas
Anexas, Local 33225 (the Union) is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The following employees of the Respondent consti-
tute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
[A]ll . . . employees except . . . [the following excluded
employees]: (1) Administration: President, Executive
Assistant to the president, Treasurer, Comptroller,
Chief Accounting Officer, and seven executive secre-
taries who work in any department of the Company,
Chief Personnel Officer and his or her secretary and se-
curity personnel and credit manager; (2) Advertising:
Agency Advertisement Sales Director, Direct Adver-
tisement Sales Director, Classified Ads and Notices
Sales Director, and Advertisement Salesperson; (3)
Circulation: Circulation Department Director, Island
Supervisor, Metro Area Subscriptions Supervisor, Met-
ro Area Lighting and Post Supervisor, two (2) Chief
Dispatching Officers, four (4) At Large Regional Su-
pervisors, Newspaper Carriers and Heralds; (4) Editori-
al: Director, Associate Director, and Chief Editor; (5)
Production: Production Department Director, (2) Shop
Supervisors, (3) Press Supervisors (two during the day
and one at night), Maintenance Engineer and Electrical
Engineering Supervisor.
4. Since December 17, 2013, the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing and refusing
to recognize and bargain collectively with the Union as
the collective-bargaining representative of the above de-
scribed unit of employees.
5. Since December 17, 2013, the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to bargain
collectively with the Union by failing and refusing to

furnish the Union with information requested by it on December 17,
2013. Accordingly, we find, pursuant to Sec. 102.46(b)(2) of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, that these exceptions should be disre-
garded. See, e.g., New Concept Solutions, LLC, 349 NLRB 1136, 1136
fn. 2 (2007). Moreover, even if properly filed, these exceptions would
lack merit. In light of the successorship finding, the Respondent’s
failure and refusal to furnish the Union with the requested information
violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1).
2 The judge neglected to include Conclusions of Law in her decision.
We shall correct this inadvertent omission.
3 We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order to conform to the
Board’s standard remedial language and substitute a new notice to
conform to the Order as modified.
2 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
furnish it with requested information that is relevant and
necessary to the Union’s performance of its functions as
the collective-bargaining representative of the Respond-
ent’s unit employees.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Publi-Inversiones de Puerto Rico, Inc. d/b/a
El Vocero de Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with
Union de Periodistas, Artes Graficas y Ramas Anexas,
Local 33225 (the Union) as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the bar-
gaining unit.
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Union by
failing and refusing to furnish it with requested infor-
mation that is relevant and necessary to the Union’s per-
formance of its functions as the collective-bargaining
representative of the Respondent’s unit employees.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the employees in
the following appropriate unit concerning terms and con-
ditions of employment and, if an understanding is
reached, embody the understanding in a signed agree-
ment:
[A]ll . . . employees except . . . [the following excluded
employees]: (1) Administration: President, Executive
Assistant to the president, Treasurer, Comptroller,
Chief Accounting Officer, and seven executive secre-
taries who work in any department of the Company,
Chief Personnel Officer and his or her secretary and se-
curity personnel and credit manager; (2) Advertising:
Agency Advertisement Sales Director, Direct Adver-
tisement Sales Director, Classified Ads and Notices
Sales Director, and Advertisement Salesperson; (3)
Circulation: Circulation Department Director, Island
Supervisor, Metro Area Subscriptions Supervisor, Met-
ro Area Lighting and Post Supervisor, two (2) Chief
Dispatching Officers, four (4) At Large Regional Su-
pervisors, Newspaper Carriers and Heralds; (4) Editori-
al: Director, Associate Director, and Chief Editor; (5)
Production: Production Department Director, (2) Shop
Supervisors, (3) Press Supervisors (two during the day
and one at night), Maintenance Engineer and Electrical
Engineering Supervisor.
(b) Furnish to the Union in a timely manner the infor-
mation requested by the Union on December 17 and 23,
2013.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
all of its facilities in San Juan, Puerto Rico, copies of the
attached notice marked “Appendix.”4 Copies of the no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 12, after being signed by the Respondent’s author-
ized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent
and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of
paper notices, notices shall be distributed electronically,
such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet
site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent
customarily communicates with its employees by such
means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material. If the Respondent has
gone out of business or closed the facility involved in
these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and
mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all cur-
rent employees and former employees employed by the
Respondent at any time since December 17, 2013.
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 12 a sworn certifi-
cation of a responsible official on a form provided by the
Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has
taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. March 10, 2017
______________________________________
Philip A. Miscimarra, Acting Chairman
______________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Member
______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

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.”
PUBLI-INVERSIONES DE PUERTO RICO, INC. 3
APPENDIX
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 behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to recognize and bargain
with Union de Periodistas, Artes Graficas y Ramas
Anexas, Local 33225 (the Union), as the exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representative of our employees in the
bargaining unit.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with the
Union by failing and refusing to furnish it with requested
information that is relevant and necessary to the Union’s
performance of its functions as the collective-bargaining
representative of our unit employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above.
WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Union as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of our
employees in the following appropriate unit concerning
terms and conditions of employment and, if an under-
standing is reached, embody the understanding in a
signed agreement:
[A]ll . . . employees except . . . [the following excluded
employees]: (1) Administration: President, Executive
Assistant to the president, Treasurer, Comptroller,
Chief Accounting Officer, and seven executive secre-
taries who work in any department of the Company,
Chief Personnel Officer and his or her secretary and se-
curity personnel and credit manager; (2) Advertising:
Agency Advertisement Sales Director, Direct Adver-
tisement Sales Director, Classified Ads and Notices
Sales Director, and Advertisement Salesperson; (3)
Circulation: Circulation Department Director, Island
Supervisor, Metro Area Subscriptions Supervisor, Met-
ro Area Lighting and Post Supervisor, two (2) Chief
Dispatching Officers, four (4) At Large Regional Su-
pervisors, Newspaper Carriers and Heralds; (4) Editori-
al: Director, Associate Director, and Chief Editor; (5)
Production: Production Department Director, (2) Shop
Supervisors, (3) Press Supervisors (two during the day
and one at night), Maintenance Engineer and Electrical
Engineering Supervisor.
WE WILL furnish to the Union in a timely manner the
information requested by the Union on December 17 and
23, 2013.
PUBLI-INVERSIONES DE PUERTO RICO, INC.
D/B/A EL VOCERO DE PUERTO RICO
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/12–CA–120344 or by using the QR
code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the
decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor
Relations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington,
D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273–1940.
Ana Ramos-Fernández, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Yldefonso Lopez Mórales, Esq., for the Respondent.
Miguel Simonet Sierra, Esq., for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MELISSA M. OLIVERO, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was tried in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on January 26–28, 2016.
Union de Periodistas, Artes Graficas y Ramas Anexas, Local
33225 (Union) filed the charge on January 9, 2014, and an
amended charge on February 26, 2014. The General Counsel
issued the complaint on October 30, 2015, alleging that Publi-
Inversiones de Puerto Rico, Inc., d/b/a El Vocero de Puerto
Rico (Respondent), as a successor to Caribbean International
News Corporation, d/b/a El Vocero de Puerto Rico, Inc. (CIN),
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations
Act (Act) by failing and refusing to meet and bargain with the
Union and failing and refusing to provide the Union with cer-
tain requested information. The parties were given a full op-
portunity to participate, to introduce relevant evidence, to ex-
amine and cross-examine witnesses, and to file briefs. On the
entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the
4 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
witnesses,1 and after fully considering the briefs filed by the
parties, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent Publi-Inversiones de Puerto Rico, Inc., d/b/a El
Vocero de Puerto Rico, a corporation, is engaged in the publi-
cation of a newspaper of general circulation in Puerto Rico at
its facility in San Juan, Puerto Rico, where it annually derives
gross revenues in excess of $200,000, and purchases goods
valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Respondent admits, and I find,
that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. (GC Exh. 1(l).) The
parties have further stipulated, and I find, that the Union is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act. (Jt. Exh. 23, para. 6.)
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. El Vocero as Operated by CIN
Caribbean International News Corporation, d/b/a El Vocero
de Puerto Rico, Inc. (CIN), published El Vocero de Puerto Rico
(El Vocero), a newspaper of general circulation, from a date
unspecified in the record until November 2013.2 CIN’s main
office was located at a leased facility located at Constitution
Avenue, Puerta de Tierra, Puerto Rico (Puerta de Tierra facili-
ty). CIN’s administrative and editorial work was performed at
its Puerta de Tierra facility. Its presses were located at a leased
facility located at Industrial Park (Sector Matadero), Puerto
Nuevo, Puerto Rico (Puerto Nuevo facility). (Jt. Exh. 23.)
CIN’s printing and inserting work was performed at the Puerto
Nuevo facility. (Jt. Exh. 23.)
The Puerto Nuevo facility is a three-story building. (Tr. 24.)
Paper rolls were stored in one section of the building, presses
were located in another, and dispatching and inserting work
was performed in another. A small section of the building con-
tained the offices and restrooms.
CIN had two presses at its Puerto Nuevo facility. (Tr. 16.)
Two pressmen worked on the night shift to operate the presses.
In addition, 7 press assistants, one mechanic, and a dispatcher
worked the night shift. (Tr. 17.) CIN’s employees were orga-
nized into the following 13 departments: administration; per-
sonnel; workshop; photography; classified; circulation; recep-
tion; guards; editorial; sales; accounting; press; and dispatch.
(Tr. 86–88.)
CIN also published several magazines at its Puerto Nuevo
facility. From 2004 through 2009, CIN published the following
magazines: Sociales; Habitat; Surf; and Al Volante. (Tr. 19.)

1 Although I have included citations to the record to highlight partic-
ular testimony or exhibits, my findings and conclusions are not based
solely on those specific record citations, but rather on my review and
consideration of the entire record for this case. My findings of fact
encompass the credible testimony and evidence presented at trial, as
well as logical inferences drawn therefrom.
2 CIN published El Vocero since at least 1998, as the collective-
bargaining agreement between CIN and the Union in evidence as Joint
Exhibit 1 was signed in 1998.
Habitat and Sociales continued to be published through 2012 or
2013. (Id.) All of these magazines were printed and placed
inside the newspaper at the Puerto Nuevo facility. (Tr. 19.) The
magazines were the same size as the newspaper. (Tr. 38.) The
magazines were never distributed independently of El Vocero;
they were always inserted in the newspaper. (Tr. 33.) The
magazines were printed on the same type of paper and with the
same machines as the newspaper. (Tr. 32.)
CIN also maintained a website and social media presence for
El Vocero. According to the undisputed testimony of Jose
Ortega, El Vocero has had an Internet website since 2011 or
2012. (Tr. 177–178.) Moreover, a 2012 printed edition of the
newspaper references the newspaper’s website, www.
vocero.com. (GC Exh. 7.)
Jose Manuel Hernandez Rivera worked as a pressman at El
Vocero under CIN. (Tr. 16.) Hernandez Rivera always worked
the night shift, but his hours varied. (Tr. 34.) His duties as a
pressman included producing the newspaper and evaluating its
quality. (Tr. 16.) His supervisor was Eligio Dekony, CIN’s
press director. As a pressman, Hernandez Rivera was provided
safety equipment and tools by CIN. The safety equipment in-
cluded gloves, hearing protection, and safety glasses. (Tr. 31.)
Other employees and contracted personnel did not use the same
safety equipment as press employees; inserters and dispatchers
used only hearing protection. (Tr. 32.)
CIN used inserters (also referred to as “inserts”) to place ad-
vertisements and shoppers3 into the newspaper. (Tr. 20.) CIN
subcontracted its inserters through three separate agencies be-
tween 2001 and 2012. From 2001 to 2005, CIN obtained its
inserters through Maricau. (Tr. 59.) From 2005 to 2010, Re-
spondent obtained inserters from Professional Multi-Sales and
Service, Inc. (GC Exhs. 2, 3; Tr. 61.) From 2010 to 2012, CIN
obtained inserters from Multi-Services Corp. (Tr. 64.)
Olga Mendez Gonzalez worked as an inserter for CIN from
2001 to 2012. (Tr. 59.) During this time, she was employed by
the three companies referenced above. Although her pay, su-
pervisors, and shifts varied over time, her duties did not. As an
inserter, Mendez Gonzalez inserted shoppers and other materi-
als into El Vocero.4
Inserters had only passing contact with the employees of El
Vocero.5 (Tr. 67–68.) These workers might exchange pleasant-
ries in passing or before or after a shift. (Tr. 20, 72, 74.) Insert-
ers were not allowed to talk during work hours. (Tr. 70–71.)
Inserters worked the day shift under Maricau and the night shift
under Professional Multi-Sales and Multi-Services.

3 Shoppers are sales flyers from stores. (Tr. 77.)
4 Although Respondent invites me to discredit Mendez Gonzalez’
testimony because she is the sister of Antonio Mendez Gonzalez, the
Union’s secretary-treasurer, I decline to do so. (R. Br. p. 26, fn. 10.)
Her testimony was given in a steady and sure manner. She did not
waver under cross-examination. More importantly, however, her testi-
mony was not contradicted in any meaningful way by more credible
testimony or evidence. Therefore, I have credited the testimony of
Mendez Gonzalez.
5 Mendez Gonzalez’ testimony on this point was not effectively re-
butted by any other witness or evidence.
PUBLI-INVERSIONES DE PUERTO RICO, INC. 5
CIN laid off about 30 employees on September 19, 2012.
(Tr. 96.) All 30 of the laid off employees were union members.
Id.
As of December 1, 2013, CIN’s Board of Directors consisted
of Fernando Ortega (President), Joey Jiménez (Vice President),
Hiram Irizarry (Treasurer), Noel Berríos (Secretary), Gerardo
Larrea, Dionisio Trigo, Raúl Betancourt, Tony Larrea, and José
(Pepe) Dueño. (Jt. Exh. 23.) Maria Luisa Roca was CIN’s Hu-
man Resources Director. (Tr. 104).
B. El Vocero’s Labor Relations under CIN
Union de Periodistas, Artes Graficas y Ramas Anexas. Local
33225 (Union) was the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of a group of employees employed by CIN. CIN
remitted dues to the Union on behalf of its employees through
at least October 2013. (GC Exh. 5.) CIN was signatory to a
series of collective-bargaining agreements with the Union, the
most recent of which had an expiration date in 2001 (the
agreement). (Jt. Exh. 1(b).) However, the agreement remained
in effect by the operation of article 27, which stated that the
agreement would remain in effect until negotiations for a suc-
cessor agreement had lawfully concluded.
By the plain language of article I of the agreement, the bar-
gaining unit represented by the Union consisted of:
A. [A]ll . . . employees except as provided in Section B of
this article and those that may be excluded pursuant to Section
5 of Article XX.
B. The following are excluded:
EL VOCERO
1. Administration: President, Executive Assistant to
the president, Treasurer, Comptroller, Chief Ac-
counting Officer, and seven executive secretaries
who work in any department of the Company, Chief
Personnel Officer and his or her secretary and secu-
rity personnel and credit manager.
2. Advertising: Agency Advertisement Sales Director;
Direct Advertisement Sales Director, Classified
Ads and Notices Sales Director, and Advertisement
Salesperson.
3. Circulation: Circulation Department Director, Is-
land Supervisor, Metro Area Subscriptions Super-
visor, Metro Area Lighting and Post Supervisor,
two (2) Chief Dispatching Officers, four (4) At
Large Regional Supervisors, Newspaper Carriers
and Heralds.
4. Editorial: Director, Associate Director, and Chief
Editor.
5. Production: Production Department Director, (2)
Shop Supervisors, (3) Press Supervisors (two dur-
ing the day and one at night), Maintenance Engi-
neer and Electrical Engineering Supervisor.
Section 5 of article XX indicated that if CIN created a new
job classification, it was required to notify the Union in writing
and, at the Union’s request meet and bargain over whether the
new position would be covered under the Agreement and the
salary for the new position.6 Section 5 of article XX also sets
forth a procedure in the event that the parties would be unable
to reach agreement.
The General Counsel submits that the bargaining unit of em-
ployees represented by the Union consists of:
All full time and regular part time employees employed by the
Employer, including maintenance employees, messengers, re-
ceptionist, switchboard operator, press employees, press
maintenance, press assistant, press mechanics, classified and
edit clerks, utility employees, excess employees and promo-
tion employees, secretaries and clerks, district managers driv-
ers, radio operator, workshop, district manager group leaders,
mechanics assistant, reporters, photographers, accountants,
graphic artist, editors and electricians and excluding the presi-
dent, president assistant, treasurer, comptroller, accounting
chief, 7 executive assistants working at any department, hu-
man resources director and its secretary, guards and credit
manager, agency ads-sales director, direct ads-sales director,
classified ads-sale director and ads-salesperson, circulation
department director, supervisors-island, supervisor of sub-
scription metro zone, post and street light supervisors, chief of
dispatch, regional supervisors at large, director associate, chief
editor, production director, workshop supervisors; press su-
pervisor, maintenance engineer and electric engineer supervi-
sors and “inserts.”
(GC Exh. 1(g), para. 6(a).) Respondent denied that the unit as
alleged by the General Counsel is correct. (GC Exh. 1(l).) The
General Counsel states in her brief that the unit is based on the
language of articles I and XIX of the agreement. (GC Br. p. 6.)
Article XIX is the salary scales for CIN’s employees and the
listed titles are those used by the General Counsel as employees
included in the unit.7 Editors are included among the positions
in the salary scales contained in article XIX. The General
Counsel added the group “inserts,” which was not listed in the
salary schedule in article XIX, to the group of excluded em-
ployees. However, the evidence is clear that inserters were
never employees of CIN.8
C. CIN’s Bankruptcy Proceedings
CIN filed a voluntary petition for reorganization pursuant to
Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C.
§1101 et seq.) on September 20, 2013. (Jt. Exh. 2.) On October
15, 2013, upon a motion filed by CIN, the United Stated Bank-
ruptcy Court for the District of Puerto Rico converted the case
to a liquidation under Chapter 7 (11 U.S.C. §701 et seq.) and
appointed a trustee. Id.
The Bankruptcy Trustee filed a Notice of Intent to Sell Prop-
erty at Public Sale (notice). (Jt. Exh. 2.) Following a hearing,
on November 2, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court approved the pub-
lic sale. The Union initially objected to the notice. (Jt. Exh. 2.)

6 On March 23, 2016, the parties submitted a joint motion to admit
an English translation of art. XX, sec. 5, into the record as Jt. Exh. 1(b)-
(i). The motion is granted.
7 The “maintenance employees” referred to by the General Counsel
in her unit description are listed as “janitors” in Jt. Exh. 1.
8 I shall use the unit description contained in the Union’s collective-
bargaining agreement with CIN.
6 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Union, however, withdrew its objection subject to an
amendment to the notice to include the following language:
Nothing in this Sale Order or the Asset Purchase Agreement
shall be held to limit any independent obligation of the Buyer
that potentially could arise after the closing pursuant to the
National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §145 et seq.
On November 22, 2013, Respondent acquired the property of
CIN at the public sale referenced above. (Jt. Exh. 23.) Re-
spondent was the only bidder at the sale and paid $1.9 million
for CIN’s assets. (Jt. Exh. 2.) CIN was to cease its operations
on November 30, 2013, and the transfer of assets was to be
completed by December 1, 2013. (Jt. Exh. 2.) It is not clear
from the record exactly when CIN ceased production of El
Vocero, but it appears to have been sometime in November
2013. (Tr. 14.)
D. Hiring of Employees Post-Bankruptcy
After the sale, Respondent gave a letter to each of CIN’s
employees.9 (Jt. Exh. 3; Tr. 24–25.) This letter, dated Novem-
ber 25, 2013, advised the employees to contact Respondent to
apply for employment. (Id.) Hernandez Rivera received his
letter from Dekony, who remained his supervisor after the sale
of CIN’s assets. (Tr. 39–40.) As instructed in the letter, Her-
nandez Rivera contacted Ruth Roman, Respondent’s Human
Resources Director, about applying for employment. (GC Exh.
1(l); Tr. 40.)
Dekony advised employees that they would meet with hu-
man resources to fill out applications. (Tr. 41.) Hernandez
Rivera sent in his resume via email. He further went to one of
Respondent’s facilities to meet with human resources the day
after El Vocero (under CIN) had closed. However, when Her-
nandez Rivera arrived for the meeting, he was told that he
needed to go to El Vocero’s offices in San Juan to apply. (Id.)
When he arrived in San Juan, Hernandez Rivera was taken to
a room and given an employee handbook, a set of rules, and
documents to complete. (Tr. 41–42.) While looking over the
employee manual, Hernandez Rivera noticed several differ-
ences between Respondent’s work rules and those of CIN. (Tr.
43–45.) For example, employees would receive fewer holi-
days, sick days, and vacation days. (Tr. 43, 45.) Additionally,
overtime would be paid at time-and-a-half instead of double-
time. (Tr. 43.) Respondent’s policies regarding dress code,
rules of conduct, absenteeism, and attendance would be more
stringent than those of CIN.10 (Tr. 45.)
After being given the documents, Hernandez Rivera was sent
to another room to fill out documents and for an interview. (Tr.
50–51.) After completing the computer portion of the process,

9 The letter further advised employees that Respondent is a new cor-
poration, “completely different and unrelated to [CIN].” Respondent
further asserted that it is not a continuation of or successor to CIN. (Jt.
Exh. 3.)
10 I credit Hernandez Rivera’s affidavit testimony regarding changes
in Respondent’s work policies and rules, as the affidavit was given
closer in time to the events at issue. Moreover, whether Hernandez
Rivera noticed the changes immediately or not, there is no dispute that
changes were made by Respondent to employee work rules prior to its
commencement of operations.
Hernandez Rivera was told he could leave. Hernandez Rivera
did not have an interview because, he said, Dekony already
knew him. (Tr. 25.) He was hired as a pressman and started
work for Respondent on December 1, 2013. (Tr. 21.)
E. El Vocero as Operated by Respondent
Since December 1, 2013, Respondent has been publishing El
Vocero de Puerto Rico (El Vocero) in paper and digital for-
mats. Since 2015, Respondent has also been publishing the
following 5 magazines: Mirame; Zona Sport; Bienestar Total;
Capital; and Habitat. Mirame and Zona Sport are sold for
$2.50 and the other magazines are offered free of charge. (Jt.
Exh. 23; R. Exh. 1A and 1B.) These magazines were printed
on glossy paper, different from the paper upon which El Vocero
is printed. (Tr. 146.)
Respondent’s Board of Directors makes its major operational
and financial decisions. (Jt. Exh. 23.) As of December 1, 2013,
Ortega was the president, Jiménez was the vice president, Iri-
zarry was treasurer, and Berríos was the secretary of Respond-
ent’s Board. Of CIN’s nine-person Board of Directors, five
(Fernando Ortega, Joey Jiménez, Hiram Irrizarry, Noel Berríos,
and José (Pepe) Dueño) remain as part of Respondent’s Board
of Directors. (Jt. Exh. 23.)
From December 1, 2013, through September 21, 2015, Re-
spondent’s administration and editorial departments operated at
the Puerta de Tierra facility previously used by CIN. However,
since September 21, 2015, these departments have operated at a
facility located on Ponce de Leon Avenue in Santurce. (Jt.
Exh. 23.) Since December 1, 2013, Respondent’s operations,
including the press, dispatch, and inserting of advertisements,
have taken place at the same Puerto Nuevo facility previously
used by CIN. (Jt. Exh. 23.)
Respondent published its first edition of El Vocero on De-
cember 1, 2013, shortly after CIN ceased operations. Respond-
ent made the following changes to the newspaper: the logo was
redesigned; the background color was changed from blue to
red, with the words “El Vocero” in white; the typography has
changed and the slogan “the truth has no price” added; the size
of the paper was made smaller; each edition is limited to 32–48
pages; several sections or segments were renamed; Respondent
refers to its reporters as “megareporters”; and, at some point
after 2014, Respondent discontinued the use of the reproduction
of negatives process and now uses the computer-to-plate pro-
cess.11 (Jt. Exhs. 7, 8, 9, 23.) Respondent continued to use the
website www.vocero.com as its Internet platform for El
Vocero. (Tr. 124–125.)
Respondent’s operations are broken down into the following
4 departments: administration; editing; production; and sales.
(Jt. Exh. 23.) Respondent’s organizational charts indicate that
each department is further broken down into several sub-
departments. (Jt. Exhs. 14, 15.) For example, Respondent’s
administration department includes security, maintenance, re-
ception, and human resources. Respondent’s sales department
includes payroll and accounting, as well as classifieds. Re-

11 No explanation was provided for the differences between these
two processes.
PUBLI-INVERSIONES DE PUERTO RICO, INC. 7
spondent’s production department includes press and dispatch.
(Jt. Exh. 14.)
Since commencing operations in December 2013, Respond-
ent’s work force has fluctuated at around 100 employees. As of
December 15, 2013, Respondent employed 105 individuals. (Jt.
Exhs. 10, 11, 12, 13, 23.)
Between December 1, 2013, and January 31, 2014, Re-
spondent employed the following number of bargaining unit
employees, some of whom were also previously employed by
CIN:
DEPARTMENT NUMBER
EMPLOYED
BY
RESPONDENT
NUMBER
FORMERLY
EMPLOYED
BY CIN
Editing 5 3
Editorial 18 1212
Pressmen/Press Asst. 8 7
Pre-Press/Dispatch 2 213
Classified 2 0
Promotion Events 1 0
TOTAL 36 24
(Jt. Exh. 23, paras. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28.) The names of the
employees listed in the chart above are set forth in Jt. Exh. 23.
The chart does not include employees who are clearly excluded
from the unit by the language of the collective-bargaining
agreement, including managers, supervisors, confiden-
tial/administrative employees, advertising salespersons, and
security guards. The chart also does not include circulation or
distribution personnel, as both CIN and Respondent subcon-
tracted this service through another business. (Tr. 83.) Fur-
thermore, the chart does not include inserters, who were never
employees of CIN, and, thus, not included in the unit.14
As stipulated by the parties, Respondent employed 14 mana-
gerial or supervisory personnel during the relevant time period.
(Jt. Exh. 23, para. 18.) Relevant here, from December 1, 2013,
until at least January 31, 2014, Respondent employed General
Director Edward Zayas, Production Director Eligio Dekony,
and Human Resourced Director Ruth Román. (Jt. Exh. 23.)
The parties have stipulated, and I find, that these individuals are
supervisors of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11)
of the Act and agents of Respondent within the meaning of
Section 2(13) of the Act. Id. Dekony previously worked at El

12 Eleven of the twelve employees were employed by CIN until it
ceased operations on November 20, 2013, and one was employed
through September 12, 2013, when CIN laid off 30 union-member
employees. (Jt. Exh. 23, para. 24; Tr. 96.) I have included he laid off
employee among those previously employed by CIN because he was
laid off shortly before CIN ceased operations and he returned to work
for Respondent as soon as it commenced publishing El Vocero. See
Cincinnati Bronze, 286 NLRB 39, 45–46 (1987); Derby Refining, Co.,
292 NLRB 1015, 1016 (1989), enfd 915 F.2d 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).
13 Dispatch Supervisor Hector Concepcion is not included in this
number as he is an admitted supervisor of Respondent.
14 No evidence was adduced at the hearing as to whether the adver-
tising salespersons share a community of interest with Respondent’s
other employees.
Vocero under CIN; Zayas did not. It is unclear from the record
whether Román worked for CIN before the asset sale, but
CIN’s human resources director was Maria Luisa Roca.
There is no dispute that managers, supervisors, and confiden-
tial/administrative employees are properly excluded from the
bargaining unit. Of the 14 managers and supervisors employed
by Respondent during the relevant time period, 3 were previ-
ously employed by CIN. (Jt. Exh. 23, para. 18; GC Exh. 5, p.
2.)
Advertising salespersons are listed among the excluded cate-
gories of employees in the unit description in the collective-
bargaining agreement between CIN and the Union.
Ruth Román testified that Respondent’s editors are supervi-
sors. However, she did not offer any specific examples of how
the editors exercise supervisory authority.
Inserters are regular part-time employees of Respondent and
are part of the production and printing area or department.
Insert employees insert ads, shoppers, and other promotional
materials into the newspaper. The number of inserters em-
ployed by Respondent has fluctuated between 27 and 51. In-
serters work mostly night shifts. (Jt. Exhs. 16, 23.) Inserters
are supervised directly by Martina Esquilin and indirectly by
Eligio Dekony. Inserters work in the same area of the Puerta
Nuevo facility as the pressmen, press assistants, mechanics, and
dispatcher. Inserters have the same work rules as other em-
ployees and receive hourly compensation and benefits similar
to other employees, except that they do not receive health bene-
fits because they are part-time employees.
Unlike Respondent’s other employees, inserters earn only
$7.25 per hour. (Jt. Exh. 10.) For example, press employees of
Respondent earn between $11.45 and $24.04 per hour.15 The
job description for the position of inserter describes the func-
tions of the position as inserting 100 packs in one step or 50 in
two steps and performing other tasks or functions as assigned
by his or her immediate supervisor. (Jt. Exh. 16.) The job de-
scription does not appear to require special skills or training, as
it requires only the abilities to work in a team setting with little
supervision, to work under pressure, and to work rotating
schedules and overtime, as well as manual skills, punctuality,
and good physical condition. (Jt. Exh. 16).
All of Respondent’s other employees work full-time.
Among their benefits, full-time employees receive sick leave,
maternity leave, vacation leave, overtime, a health plan, and a
Christmas bonus. (Jt. Exh. 23.)
Dekony testified that Respondent’s inserters are in “constant
communication” with other departments, including dispatch
and the press. (Tr. 159.) However, I found his testimony on
this point vague and unconvincing. When asked to provide
details as to how the inserters communicate with the other de-
partments, he stated:
. . . [W]hen we have the Mayaguez truck . . . we make sure
that it is completely full before it goes out with the press and
the inserts. If we stop before, the truck cannot come out, and

15 A comparison of the names of the press employees in Jt. Exh. 23
paras. 25 and 49–50 and the payroll records contained in Jt. Exh. 10
indicate that the press department is department 300004 and inserters
work in department 300008.
8 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for us, it is very important, and we always make sure that the
first three trucks are completely full, and for that we need
communication of the three departments.
(Tr. 159–160.) Dekony did not testify to specific interactions
between inserters and other employees or the frequency of any
such interactions. He further gave ambiguous testimony re-
garding inserters assisting other employees by “help[ing] out
with the machines.” (Tr. 160.) Dekony did not specify the type
of machines or how often any such help is rendered. Due to the
imprecise nature of this testimony, I do not credit it.
Additionally, Dekony testified that one inserter has become a
press assistant. (Tr. 167.) Dekony did not provide any more
detail as to how this transfer occurred or when it occurred.
Hernandez Rivera worked for Respondent as a pressman
from December 1, 2013, through February 28, 2014.16 Hernan-
dez Rivera testified that after Respondent began its operations,
he worked in the same building and had the same duties as he
did under CIN. (Tr. 21.) He further testified that he performed
his work on the same presses and had the same supervisor un-
der Respondent as he did under CIN. (Tr. 22.) He continued to
work a night shift, although the start and end times of his shifts
varied with the needs of the company. (Tr. 22.)
The parties have stipulated that Respondent’s operations de-
pend on integrated work from the different departments of the
newspaper. The printing area, inserting, and dispatch are all
located in the same area. The newspaper is printed and the ads
inserted in the same building, then the paper is distributed. (Jt.
Exh. 23.)
Following Respondent’s purchase of CIN’s assets, it made
certain changes to the Puerta de Tierra facility. Among these,
Respondent changed carpets and desks, some offices were re-
modeled, walls were installed, and a photocopy machine was
replaced.
F. The Union’s Requests to Meet and Bargain and
for Information
On December 17, 2013, the Union sent a letter to Respond-
ent seeking to meet and bargain for a new collective-bargaining
agreement. (Jt. Exh. 17.) In its letter, the Union stated that it
had been the exclusive collective-bargaining representative for
a unit of El Vocero’s employees for over 39 years. The Union
also proposed three dates for negotiations.
The Union’s December 17 letter also requested that Re-
spondent furnish the Union with the following information: a
list of all employees including name and current classification
and a flow chart reflecting the current positions by hierarchy.
(Jt. Exh. 17.)
The Union did not receive a response to its December 17 let-
ter. Therefore, on December 23, the Union sent another letter
to Respondent. (Jt. Exh. 18.) This second letter reiterated the
Union’s desire to begin negotiating for a successor agreement
and its requests for information.
On December 30, 2103, Respondent replied to the Union,
indicating that its letters of December 17 and 23 had been re-

16 Although Hernandez Rivera referred to Respondent as “Public In-
vestments,” I do not find that this minor misstep detracts from his over-
all credibility.
ceived and referred to its legal counsel. (Jt. Exh. 19.) None of
the information requested by the Union was provided with Re-
spondent’s December 30 letter and Respondent did not agree to
meet and bargain for a successor agreement.
On January 14, 2014, the Union sent a follow-up letter to
Respondent. (Jt. Exh. 20.) The Union asked Respondent for the
name of its legal advisors, so that the Union could provide this
information to its own legal counsel.
On October 22, 2015, the Union sent another letter to Re-
spondent seeking to meet and bargain. (Jt. Exh. 21.) The Union
again proposed three dates for negotiations. On October 30,
2015, Respondent replied to the Union indicating that it was not
a successor to CIN and that it would not meet and bargain. (Jt.
Exh. 22.) Respondent has not furnished the Union with the
information first requested in its December 17 letter. (Jt. Exh.
23.)
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
A. Witness Credibility
A credibility determination may rely on a variety of factors,
including the context of the witness’ testimony, the witness’
demeanor, the weight of the respective evidence, established or
admitted facts, inherent probabilities and reasonable inferences
that may be drawn from the record as a whole. Double D Con-
struction Group, Inc., 339 NLRB 303, 305 (2003); Daikichi
Sushi, 335 NLRB 622, 623 (2001) (citing Shen Automotive
Dealership Group, 321 NLRB 586, 589 (1996)), enfd 56 Fed.
Appx. 516 (D.C. Cir. 2003). Credibility findings need not be
all-or-nothing propositions—indeed, nothing is more common
in all kinds of judicial decisions than to believe some, but not
all, of a witness’ testimony. Daikichi Sushi, 335 NLRB at 622.
Many of the facts in this case are not in dispute. However, to
the extent needed, my credibility findings are incorporated into
the findings of fact set forth above.
B. Legal Standards Regarding Successorship
In NLRB v. Burns International Security Services, Inc., 406
U.S. 272 (1972), the United States Supreme Court approved the
approach taken by the Board with respect to determining
whether a new company was a successor to a predecessor em-
ployer. 406 U.S., at 280–281, and fn. 4. This approach, which
is factual in nature and based upon the totality of the circum-
stances, requires that the Board focus on whether the new com-
pany has acquired substantial assets of its predecessor and con-
tinued, without interruption or substantial change, the predeces-
sor’s business operations. Fall River Dyeing & Finishing Corp.
v. NLRB, 482 U.S. 27, 43 (1987), citing Golden State Bottling
Co. v. NLRB, 414 U.S. 168, 184 (1973). The Board’s focus is
on whether there is substantial continuity between the enter-
prises. Fall River Dyeing, 482 U.S. at 43. The thrust of the
Court’s decision in Fall River Dyeing is that stability in labor
relations and the free flow of commerce during a transition
between employers are best achieved by protecting existing
bargaining rights. GVS Properties, LLC, 362 NLRB No. 194,
slip op. at 4 (2015).
Thus, the Board examines a number of factors in determin-
ing successorship: whether the business of both employers is
essentially the same; whether the employees of the new compa-
PUBLI-INVERSIONES DE PUERTO RICO, INC. 9
ny are doing the same jobs in the same working conditions
under the same supervisors; and whether the new entity has the
same production process, produces the same products, and
basically has the same body of customers. 482 U.S. at 43. The
Board conducts its analysis from the point of view of an em-
ployee. As stated by the Supreme Court, the Board keeps in
mind the question of whether those employees who have been
retained view their job situations as essentially unaltered. Fall
River Dyeing, 482 U.S. at 43, citing Golden State Bottling Co.,
414 U.S., at 184. Accordingly, the Respondent’s bargaining
obligation turns on whether a majority of its employees in an
appropriate bargaining unit were employed by the predecessor,
and if there exists substantial continuity between the enterpris-
es. A.J. Myers & Sons, 362 NLRB No. 51 (2015).
It should be noted that the bankruptcy of a predecessor and
the purchase of assets under court order by a third party does
not bar a finding of successorship. Decor Noel, Inc., 283
NLRB 911, 915 (1987). Rather, the Board looks at all the cir-
cumstances to determine whether the employing entity is the
same. Lloyd Flanders, 280 NLRB 1216 (1986), citing Premium
Foods, Inc. v. NLRB, 709 F.2d 623 (9th Cir. 1983).
C. Respondent is a Successor to CIN
Applying the facts of this case to the standards set forth
above, I find that the General Counsel has established that Re-
spondent is a successor to CIN. Respondent’s business is virtu-
ally indistinguishable from that of CIN. CIN published a
newspaper of general circulation and Respondent continues to
do so. Although some changes were made to the appearance of
the newspaper, this does not change the fact that Respondent
still publishes a newspaper. As indicated above, Respondent
acquired the assets of CIN at a bankruptcy auction in late No-
vember 2013. By December 1, 2013, Respondent was publish-
ing El Vocero at the same location, using the same equipment,
and in the same manner as it had been done by CIN. By De-
cember 15, 2013, Respondent employed a substantial and rep-
resentative complement of CIN’s bargaining unit employees.
I do not accept Respondent’s arguments that changes in the
attendant magazine publications and Internet and social media
presence indicate a change in business operations. Respondent
uses a similar production process, produces the same product at
the same location, and has the same body of customers as CIN.
(Jt. Exh. 23, paras. 12–14.) The newspaper continues to be
distributed free of charge to customers in Puerto Rico and parts
of the continental United States, just as it had been by CIN.
Any changes made to the appearance of El Vocero were cos-
metic in nature and wholly inadequate to show a change in the
essential nature of the business. Furthermore, although Re-
spondent now produces different magazines on a different type
of paper, some of which it sells separately from El Vocero, it
did not start to do so until 2015.
Significantly, from the perspective of Respondent’s employ-
ees, their jobs did not change. Hernandez Rivera’s uncontro-
verted testimony established that he performed the same work,
on the same presses, in the same location, and under the same
supervisor for Respondent as he had under CIN. Although the
record is unclear as to how the process for producing the news-
paper changed when it changed from the reproduction of nega-
tive process to the computer-to-plate process, I do not find this
difference changed the essential job duties of Respondent’s
bargaining unit employees. I find that this is important because
in the eyes of Respondent’s employees, their job duties contin-
ued unchanged after the sale of CIN’s assets. See Fall River
Dyeing, 482 U.S. at 44 (finding substantial continuity although
employer changed its dyeing process because, from the per-
spective of an employee, the essential nature of the employees’
jobs did not change.)
The main issue in the case revolves around whether Re-
spondent hired a substantial and representative complement of
CIN’s employees. For the reason set forth herein, I find that
Respondent hired a substantial and representative complement
of CIN’s bargaining unit employees by December 15, 2013. I
also find that advertising salespersons and inserters should not
be considered when determining whether a substantial and
representative complement of CIN’s unit employees had been
hired. Furthermore, I find that Respondent’s editors should be
included among the classifications of employees considered in
determining the substantial and representative complement.
Advertising salespersons and security guards are specifically
listed among the excluded categories of employees in the unit
description in the collective-bargaining agreement between
CIN and the Union. Thus, they should not be considered in
determining whether Respondent hired a substantial and repre-
sentative complement.
Furthermore, despite Ruth Román’s testimony at the trial, I
do not find that Respondent’s editors are supervisors. Section
2(11) of the Act provides that a supervisor is one who possess-
es, “authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer,
suspend, layoff, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or
discipline other employees, or to responsibly direct them, or to
adjust their grievances, or effectively recommend such action,
if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authori-
ty is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the
use of independent judgment.” Under Board and Supreme
Court precedent, in order to be a statutory supervisor, an indi-
vidual must have the authority to effectuate or effectively rec-
ommend at least one of the supervisory indicia enumerated in
Section 2(11) of the Act, using independent judgment in the
interest of the employer. Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 348
NLRB 686, 687 (2006) (citing NLRB v. Kentucky River Com-
munity Care, 532 U.S. 706 (2001)).
The Board construes a lack of evidence on any of the ele-
ments necessary to establish supervisory status against the party
asserting that status. Brusco Tug & Barge, 359 NLRB 486, 491
(2012), citing Dean & Deluca New York, Inc., 338 NLRB 1046,
1048 (2003). Supervisory status is not proven where the record
evidence “is in conflict or otherwise inconclusive.” Phelps
Community Medical Center, 295 NLRB 486, 490 (1989).
“[M]ere inferences or conclusionary statements, without de-
tailed, specific evidence, are insufficient to establish superviso-
ry authority.” Alternate Concepts, Inc., 358 NLRB 292, 294
(2012); see also Avante at Wilson, Inc., 348 NLRB 1056, 1057
(2006) (“[g]eneral testimony asserting that employees have
supervisory responsibilities is not sufficient to satisfy the bur-
den of proof when there is no specific evidence supporting the
testimony” (citations omitted)); Golden Crest Healthcare Cen-
10 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ter, 348 NLRB 727, 731 (2006). In this case, Respondent pro-
duced no evidence, other than the bare assertion of Ruth
Román, that its editors are supervisors. As such, I find that
Respondent’s editors are not supervisors and are properly in-
cluded in the unit.
Critical to a successorship finding is whether the bargaining
unit of the predecessor employer remains appropriate for the
successor employer. Paramus Ford, Inc., 351 NLRB 1019,
1023 (2007). In Paramus Ford, the employer challenged the
appropriateness of a historical unit of service and parts depart-
ment employees. Id. As in Paramus Ford, the Union here has
represented the unit of El Vocero employees set forth above for
a significant period of time. Under extant Board law, the unit
sought by the Union and alleged in the complaint need not be
the only or even the most appropriate unit; all that is required is
that the unit be an appropriate unit. (Emphasis in original.) Id.
citing Bartlett Collins Co., 334 NLRB 484 (2001); Gregory
Chevrolet, Inc., 258 NLRB 233, 238 (1981).
Regarding the appropriateness of historical units, the Board’s
longstanding policy is that a “mere change in ownership should
not uproot bargaining units that have enjoyed a history of col-
lective bargaining unless the units no longer conform reasona-
bly well to other standards of appropriateness.” 351 NLRB at
1024. The party challenging a historical unit bears the burden
of showing that the unit is no longer appropriate. Id. The evi-
dentiary burden for such a showing is heavy. Id. “Compelling
circumstances” are required to overcome the significance of
bargaining history. Id. citing Cadillac Asphalt Paving Co., 349
NLRB 6, 9 (2007).
In this case, Respondent has not shown any compelling cir-
cumstances to overcome the appropriateness of the historical
bargaining unit set forth in the collective-bargaining agreement
between CIN and the Union. Respondent did not produce any
credible evidence that inserters, advertising salespersons, and
security guards share a community of interest with the histori-
cally appropriate unit. The historically appropriate unit, as set
forth in the collective-bargaining agreement between the Union
and CIN excludes advertising salespersons and security guards.
Circulation or distribution employees are not listed, as CIN
subcontracted these services. The agreement contains no refer-
ence to inserters, as they were not employees of CIN. No cred-
ible evidence was adduced at the trial as to how the role of the
inserters has changed after they were hired as part-time em-
ployees under Respondent. Here, the evidence fails to demon-
strate that the historic unit previously employed by CIN is no
longer appropriate. Olga Mendez Gonzalez testified that in-
serters worked as nonunit employees of subcontractors to CIN
for many years. There is no evidence that the mere fact that
Respondent now employs the inserters as part-time employees
has resulted in any change in the nature of the relationship be-
tween the employees in the historical unit and the inserters.
Furthermore, the evidence establishes that inserters are paid far
less than and work very different hours from Respondent’s
other employees. Without any evidence to the contrary, I find
that the historical unit set forth in the collective-bargaining
agreement remains appropriate.
In summary, of the 5 employees in Respondent’s editing de-
partment, 3 were former CIN employees. (Jt. Exh. 23, para. 23.)
In Respondent’s editorial department, 12 of the 18 employees
were former CIN employees. (Jt. Exh. 23, para. 24.) In the
press department, 7 of Respondent’s 8 employees previously
worked for CIN. (Jt. Exh. 23, para. 25.) In the pre-
press/dispatch department, both of Respondent’s two employ-
ees were former CIN employees. (Jt. Exh. 23, paras. 18, 26.)
In the classified department, neither of Respondent’s two em-
ployees worked for CIN. Respondent’s one employee in pro-
motion events did not work for CIN. Thus, among bargaining
unit employees, two-thirds, or 24 of Respondent’s 36 bargain-
ing unit employees, were former employees of CIN by Decem-
ber 15, 2013.
The alignment of Respondent’s departments is not that dif-
ferent from that of CIN. Although Respondent has far fewer
departments than CIN, several of CIN’s old departments are
now subdepartments in Respondent’s organization. Further-
more, several members of CIN’s Board of Directors remain on
Respondent’s Board of Directors. Additionally, some key su-
pervisors of CIN, including Dekony, remain as supervisors for
Respondent. The lack of total alignment between CIN’s and
Respondent’s managers and Board of Directors is not fatal to a
finding of successorship. In GFS Building Maintenance, Inc.,
330 NLRB 747, 752 (2000), the Board found that continuity is
not destroyed and successorship is not defeated because a suc-
cessor employer did not hire all of its predecessor’s supervi-
sors. See Sierra Realty, supra at 835, citing Boston-Needham
Industrial Cleaning Co., Inc., 216 NLRB 26, 27 (1975) (where
other factors indicate that essentially the same operation has
been continued, the fact that there may not be a substantial
continuity in employment of the predecessor’s supervisory staff
is not of overriding importance).
Based on the foregoing principles, I find that the General
Counsel demonstrated that there is a substantial continuity be-
tween Respondent and CIN. Accordingly, I find that Respond-
ent is the successor employer to CIN for the employees who
worked in the bargaining unit set forth in the contract between
CIN and the Union. See Van Lear Equipment, Inc., 336 NLRB
1059, 1063–1064 (2001) (finding substantial continuity be-
tween the predecessor and successor because, although the
successor provided a different supervisor, different pay rates
and benefits, and newer buses to drive than the predecessor,
the employee bus drivers were performing the same work that
they performed for the predecessor); M.S. Management Associ-
ates, Inc., 325 NLRB 1154, 1155 (1998) (finding substantial
continuity where the successor provided the same housekeeping
and HVAC services to the same set of customers, and with the
same equipment, with no hiatus in operations.)
Furthermore, the extremely short hiatus in operations be-
tween CIN and Respondent militates in favor of a finding of
successorship. CIN ceased printing El Vocero sometime in
November 2013, the assets of CIN were sold to Respondent on
November 22, 2013, and Respondent printed its first edition of
El Vocero on December 1, 2013. Findings of substantial conti-
nuity have been made after much longer hiatuses. See Jame-
stown Fabricated Steel and Supply, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 161
(2015) (substantial continuity found with hiatus of 6 months
between predecessor’s closure and successor’s commencement
of operations); Tree-Free Fiber Co., 328 NLRB 389 (1999)
PUBLI-INVERSIONES DE PUERTO RICO, INC. 11
(substantial continuity found between two enterprises when
there was a hiatus of 16 months between the closure of the
predecessor and the commencement of operations by the suc-
cessor.) Certainly, the very brief hiatus in operations in this
case suggests that Respondent is a successor to CIN under the
substantial continuity analysis.
I do not find that CIN’s bankruptcy extinguished Respond-
ent’s status as a successor. Respondent bought all of CIN’s
equipment and property in a bankruptcy auction. The Notice of
Sale for this auction included language, added at the Union’s
request, indicating that nothing in this Sale Order or the Asset
Purchase Agreement shall be held to limit any independent
obligation of the buyer that potentially could arise after the
closing pursuant to the National Labor Relations Act. Based on
the other evidence in this case, including Respondent’s hiring
of a substantial and representative complement of CIN’s em-
ployees and its continuation of CIN’s business in a largely un-
changed format, I find that Respondent is a successor to CIN.
D. Respondent was Obligated to Bargain with the Union
Respondent’s obligation to bargain with the Union matured
when two conditions were met: (1) Respondent had hired a
substantial and representative complement of employees, a
majority of whom had been CIN bargaining unit employees;
and (2) the Union had made an effective demand for recogni-
tion and bargaining. See MSK Corp., 341 NLRB 43, 44 (2004).
These two conditions need not occur in any particular order. Id.
Where a union demands recognition from a prospective succes-
sor employer before that successor has hired a substantial and
representative complement of employees, the union’s demand
is deemed to be a continuing one and the successor’s bargain-
ing obligation matures once it hires a substantial and repre-
sentative employee complement. See Simon DeBartelo Group,
325 NLRB 1154, 1156 (1998), enfd. 241 F.3d 207 (2d Cir.
2001).
In deciding when a substantial and representative comple-
ment exists in a particular employer transition, the Board exam-
ines a number of factors. It studies “whether the job classifica-
tions designated for the operation were filled or substantially
filled and whether the operation was in normal or substantially
normal production.” See Premium Foods, Inc. v. NLRB, 709
F.2d 623, 628 (9th Cir. 1983). Respondent was fully opera-
tional as of December 1, 2013, and it had hired 105 employees
by December 15, 2013. No evidence was presented at the hear-
ing that Respondent planned to hire more employees in bar-
gaining unit classifications after December 15, 2013. Thus, I
shall evaluate whether, as of December 15, 2013, Respondent
had hired a substantial and representative complement of CIN’s
bargaining unit employees.
I find, based on the totality of the circumstances, that Re-
spondent employed a substantial and representative comple-
ment of CIN’s employees as of December 15, 2013. As found
above, among bargaining unit employees, two-thirds, or 24 of
Respondent’s 36 bargaining unit employees, were former em-
ployees of CIN as of December 15, 2013. The Union made its
first demand to bargain with Respondent in its letter of Decem-
ber 17, 2103. By that time, Respondent had begun normal
production of El Vocero. Accordingly, by December 15, 2013,
when Respondent employed a substantial and representative
complement of CIN’s employees and when the Union made its
demand to bargain, Respondent had an obligation to bargain
with the Union.
I reject Respondent’s argument that this allegation should be
dismissed because the Union’s letters of December 17 and 23
were not valid demands for recognition. (R. Br. p. 17). I note
that the Union asserted that it was the historical representative
of a unit of employees at El Vocero. Even assuming that this
was not a valid demand for recognition by El Vocero’s new
owners, I find that the Union’s letters triggered a bargaining
obligation. In Hampton Lumber Mills-Washington, 334 NLRB
195 (2001), the Board held that an employer who had hired a
substantial and representative complement of employees, a
majority of whom were represented by a union at the predeces-
sor, was obligated to recognize the union after “a demand for
recognition or bargaining by the union.” Thus, either a demand
for recognition or bargaining is sufficient to trigger a bargain-
ing obligation in a successorship situation. Jamestown Fabri-
cated Steel and Supply, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 161 (2015). In
Hampton Mills-Washington, the union’s letter, which was
found sufficient to establish a bargaining obligation on behalf
of the successor employer, requested recognition, but did not
specifically request bargaining. 334 NLRB at 199. Conversely,
in the instant case, the Union clearly sought bargaining, but its
demand for recognition was not as clear. The Union’s letters of
December 17 and 23, 2013, specifically sought to “begin nego-
tiation meetings” for a new collective-bargaining agreement.
(Jt. Exhs. 17 and 18.) Thus, I find that the Union’s letters of
December 17 and 23, 2013, constituted a valid request for bar-
gaining sufficient to establish an obligation to recognize and
bargain with the Union after a substantial and representative
complement of CIN’s bargaining unit employees were hired.
Respondent cited several cases in its brief which are inappo-
site to the instant case. For example, Respondent cited Always
East Transportation, Case JD–63–15 (2015) for the proposition
that the Board has determined that there was no successor rela-
tionship where the alleged successor was a totally new employ-
er, employees worked under new rules and procedures for dif-
ferent supervisors, and the operation was not merely a contin-
uation of the [alleged predecessor’s]. I note that Always East
Transportation was decided by another judge and is pending
before the Board on exceptions. As such, it has no precedential
value at this time. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 323 NLRB 515, 515
fn. 1 (1997).
I have carefully read Respondent’s brief as well as the cases
cited therein. I consider the arguments presented in defense of
Respondent’s position unpersuasive. Accordingly, I find that
Respondent is a successor to CIN and employed a substantial
and representative complement of CIN’s employees as of De-
cember 15, 2013. Furthermore, I find that Respondent acquired
substantial assets of CIN and continued, without interruption or
substantial change, CIN’s business operations. Thus, under the
totality of the circumstances presented here, I find that Re-
spondent was a successor to CIN which had an obligation to
recognize and bargain with the Union as of December 17, 2013.
By failing and refusing to do so, I find that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
12 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
E. Respondent Violated the Act by Failing and Refusing to
Provide the Requested Information to the Union
In its December 17 and 23, 2013 letters, the Union sought
the following information: (1) a list with the name of every
employee, including their occupational classification at this
time; and (2) the occupational hierarchy diagram of the differ-
ent existing positions at El Vocero at the present time.17 (Jt.
Exhs. 17, 18.)
The evidentiary record establishes, and I find, that Respond-
ent violated the Act in refusing to provide the information re-
quested by the Union. Section 8(a)(5) of the Act provides that
it is an unfair labor practice for an employer “to refuse to bar-
gain collectively with the representatives of its employees.” 29
U.S.C. §158(a)(5). An employer’s duty to bargain includes a
general duty to provide information needed by the bargaining
representative in contract administration. A-1 Door & Building
Solutions, 356 NLRB 499, 500 (2011). Generally, information
concerning wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment for unit employees is presumptively relevant to the
union’s role as exclusive collective-bargaining representative.
See Southern California Gas Co., 344 NLRB 231, 235 (2005).
By contrast, information concerning extra unit employees is not
presumptively relevant; rather, relevance must be shown.
Shoppers Food Warehouse Corp., 315 NLRB 258, 259 (1994).
The burden to show relevance, however, is “not exceptionally
heavy,” Leland Stanford Junior University, 262 NLRB 136,
139 (1982), enfd. 715 F.2d 473 (9th Cir. 1983); “[t]he Board
uses a broad, discovery-type standard in determining relevance
in information requests.” Shoppers Food Warehouse, 315
NLRB at 259.
The Union’s information requests, as they relate to bargain-
ing unit employees, are presumptively relevant. However,
some of the information sought by the Union in this case is not
presumptively relevant. When a union seeks information con-
cerning employees outside of the bargaining unit, there is no
presumption of relevance and the union has the burden to show
relevance in such circumstances. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and
Co., 744 F.2d 536, 538 (6th Cir. 1984). The standard for estab-
lishing relevance is a liberal discovery-type standard, which
requires only the probability that the desired information was
relevant, and that it would be of use to the union in carrying out
its statutory duties and responsibilities.18 McKenzie-
Williamette Medical Center, 362 NLRB No. 20, slip op. at 1
(2015), citing NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 437
(1967).
In its letters, the Union made a clear demand for bargaining
after asserting that it was the bargaining representative of El
Vocero employees. The contents of these letters would apprise
a reasonable person as to the relationship between the infor-
mation requested and its demand to bargain. As such, I find
that the contents of the Union’s letters demonstrate that the

17 Respondent did not address the information request allegation in
its brief.
18 Neither the Union nor the General Counsel made any showing as
to why the information concerning nonunit employees was relevant. In
fact, Nestor Soto, the author of the December 2013 letters, was never
asked why the Union sought this information.
Union was seeking potentially relevant information regarding
Respondent’s status as a successor to CIN.
In any event, even if a union’s information request is ambig-
uous or concerns nonunit employees, this does not excuse an
employer’s blanket refusal to comply. Keauhou Beach Hotel,
298 NLRB 702, 702 (1990). In Keauhou Beach Hotel, the
Board found that if a union’s request included information re-
garding nonunit employees, this would not excuse the employ-
er’s blanket refusal to comply. 298 NLRB at 702. It is well
established that an employer may not simply refuse to comply
with an ambiguous or overly broad information request, but
must request clarification or at least comply with the request to
the extent it encompasses necessary and relevant information.
Id. As such, I find that Respondent’s blanket refusal to comply
with the Union’s information request violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I shall order it to cease and desist therefrom
and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
Respondent is ordered to recognize and bargain with Union
de Periodistas, Artes Graficas y Ramas Anexas, Local 33225
(Union), as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of its employees in the following appropriate unit concerning
terms and conditions of employment and, if an understanding is
reached, embody the understanding in a signed agreement:
[A]ll . . . employees except . . . those that may be excluded . . .
The following are excluded: (1) Administration: President,
Executive Assistant to the president, Treasurer, Comptroller,
Chief Accounting Officer, and seven executive secretaries
who work in any department of the Company, Chief Person-
nel Officer and his or her secretary and security personnel and
credit manager; (2) Advertising: Agency Advertisement Sales
Director; Direct Advertisement Sales Director, Classified Ads
and Notices Sales Director, and Advertisement Salesperson;
(3) Circulation: Circulation Department Director, Island Su-
pervisor, Metro Area Subscriptions Supervisor, Metro Area
Lighting and Post Supervisor, two (2) Chief Dispatching Of-
ficers, four (4) At Large Regional Supervisors, Newspaper
Carriers and Heralds; (4) Editorial: Director, Associate Direc-
tor, and Chief Editor; (5) Production: Production Department
Director, (2) Shop Supervisors, (3) Press; and (6) Supervisors
(two during the day and one at night), Maintenance Engineer
and Electrical Engineering Supervisor.
Respondent is ordered to furnish the Union with the infor-
mation it requested in its December 17 and 23, 2013 letters that
is relevant and necessary to the Union’s role as the exclusive
representative of the unit employees.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended19

19 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopt-
ed by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for
all purposes.
PUBLI-INVERSIONES DE PUERTO RICO, INC. 13
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Re-
spondent, Publi-Inversiones de Puerto Rico, Inc. d/b/a El
Vocero de Puerto Rico, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with Union
de Periodistas, Artes Graficas y Ramas Anexas, Local 33225
(Union), as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of the employees in the bargaining unit.
(b) Failing and refusing to furnish the Union with requested
information that is relevant and necessary to the performance of
the Union’s function as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the bargaining unit.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees 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 col-
lective-bargaining representative of the employees in the fol-
lowing appropriate unit concerning terms and conditions of
employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody the
understanding in a signed agreement:
[A]ll . . . employees except . . . those that may be excluded . . .
The following are excluded: (1) Administration: President,
Executive Assistant to the president, Treasurer, Comptroller,
Chief Accounting Officer, and seven executive secretaries
who work in any department of the Company, Chief Person-
nel Officer and his or her secretary and security personnel and
credit manager; (2) Advertising: Agency Advertisement Sales
Director; Direct Advertisement Sales Director, Classified Ads
and Notices Sales Director, and Advertisement Salesperson;
(3) Circulation: Circulation Department Director, Island Su-
pervisor, Metro Area Subscriptions Supervisor, Metro Area
Lighting and Post Supervisor, two (2) Chief Dispatching Of-
ficers, four (4) At Large Regional Supervisors, Newspaper
Carriers and Heralds; (4) Editorial: Director, Associate Direc-
tor, and Chief Editor; (5) Production: Production Department
Director, (2) Shop Supervisors, (3) Press; and (6) Supervisors
(two during the day and one at night), Maintenance Engineer
and Electrical Engineering Supervisor.
(b) Furnish the Union with the information it requested in its
December 17 and 23, 2013, letters that is relevant and neces-
sary to the Union’s role as the exclusive representative of the
unit employees.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at all of
its facilities copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 12, after being signed by the Respondent’s au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, notices
shall be distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on
an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic means, if
the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees
by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re-
spondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material. If the Respondent has gone out
of business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings,
the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a
copy of the notice to all current employees and former employ-
ees employed by the Respondent at any time since December
17, 2013.
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director of Region 12 a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to
the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
APPENDIX
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 no-
tice.
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 recognize and bargain with
Union de Periodistas, Artes Graficas y Ramas Anexas, Local
33225, as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
our employees in the bargaining unit.
WE WILL NOT refuse to furnish the Union with requested in-
formation that is relevant and necessary to its role as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of unit employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights listed above.
WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of our employees in the
following appropriate unit concerning terms and conditions of
employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody the
understanding in a signed agreement:
[A]ll . . . employees except as provided in Section B of
this article and those that may be excluded pursuant to
Section 5 of Article XX. The following are excluded: (1)
Administration: President, Executive Assistant to the pres-
ident, Treasurer, Comptroller, Chief Accounting Officer,
and seven executive secretaries who work in any depart-
ment of the Company, Chief Personnel Officer and his or
her secretary and security personnel and credit manager;
(2) Advertising: Agency Advertisement Sales Director;
Direct Advertisement Sales Director, Classified Ads and
Notices Sales Director, and Advertisement Salesperson;
(3) Circulation: Circulation Department Director, Island
Supervisor, Metro Area Subscriptions Supervisor, Metro
14 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Area Lighting and Post Supervisor, two (2) Chief Dis-
patching Officers, four (4) At Large Regional Supervisors,
Newspaper Carriers and Heralds; (4) Editorial: Director,
Associate Director, and Chief Editor; (5) Production: Pro-
duction Department Director, (2) Shop Supervisors, (3)
Press; and (6) Supervisors (two during the day and one at
night), Maintenance Engineer and Electrical Engineering
Supervisor.
WE WILL furnish the Union with the information it requested
on December 17 and 23, 2013, that is relevant and necessary to
its role as the exclusive representative of the unit employees.
PUBLI-INVERSIONES DE PUERTO RICO, INC. D/B/A EL
VOCERO DE PUERTO RICO
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/12–CA–120344 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision
from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling
(202) 273–1940.