Puerto Rican American Sugar Refinery, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 21, 1962

136 N.L.R.B. 428 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

428 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by section 8(b) (4). Accordingly , I would conclude that the judicial reasoning by
which it has been established that secondary boycott picketing is not restricted by
Section 8 (c) would be equally applicable to the peaceful minority picketing for
recognition and organization proscribed by Section 8(b) (7). But insofar as I am
called upon to evaluate Section 8 (b)(7) in terms of constitutional guarantees, how-
ever, I am mindful of established Board policy that preserves such questions for
the determination of the courts.31
In summary , therefore , it is concluded and found that for the several reasons
enumerated above , and for each of them , by picketing Jumbo Food Stores, Inc., for
more than a reasonable time after December 11, 1959 , with the objects described
above, and without a petition being filed pursuant to Section 9(c), Respondents have
engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices as defined in Section
8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Jumbo Food Stores, Inc., is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2)
and 8 (b) (7) of the Act.
2. Respondents are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. By picketing Jumbo Food Stores , Inc., for more than a reasonable time after
December 11, 1959 , with the objects of forcing or requiring Jumbo Food Stores, Inc ,
to recognize and bargain as the collective -bargaining representative of the employees
of Jumbo , and of forcing or requiring the employees of Jumbo to accept or select
them as their collective -bargaining representatives without a petition being filed under
Section 9 (c) of the Act , Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair
labor practices proscribed by Section 8(b)(7)(C ) of the Act.
4. The foregoing unfair labor practices having occurred in connection with the
operation of Jumbo Food Store 's business as set forth in section I, above , have a close,
intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the several
States and substantially affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7)
of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
m Bluefleld Produce & Provision Company , 117 NLRB 1660, 1663
Puerto Rican American Sugar Refinery, Inc. and Wadelmiro
Arroyo. Case No. 24-CA-13841. March 01, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon charges duly filed by ladelmiro Arroyo, an individual, here-
in called Arroyo, the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, by the Regional Director for the Twenty-fourth Region,
issued a complaint dated March 8, 1961, against Puerto Rican Ameri-
can Sugar Refinery, Inc., herein called the Respondent, alleging that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended. Copies of the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing
before a Trial Examiner were duly served upon the Respondent and
the Charging Party.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges,
in substance, that Wadelmiro Arroyo, an individual, was and is the
136 NLRB No. 39.
PUERTO RICAN AMERICAN SUGAR REFINERY, INC. 429
exclusive representative of all cleaning (or maintenance) employees,
stevedores, bag sewers, waterboys, and tally clerks at Respondent's
warehouse and piers in Playa de Ponce, Puerto Rico, in an appropri-
ate unit,' and that on December 27, 1960, and at all times thereafter,
Respondent unlawfully refused to bargain collectively with Arroyo
concerning the inclusion of union-security and checkoff provisions in
the unit described above.
The Respondent's answer, filed March 13, 1961, admits certain
jurisdictional and factual allegations of the complaint, but denies the
commission of any unfair labor practices.
On March 22, 1961, all parties to this proceeding entered into a
stipulation of facts, and requested that this proceeding be transferred
directly to the Board for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
decision and order. The request states that the parties have waived
their rights to a hearing before a Trial Examiner, and to the issuance
of an Intermediate Report. This request also provides that the
charge, complaint, answer, and stipulation of facts constitute the
entire record in the case.
On May 11, 1961, the Board granted the parties' request to transfer
the case to the Board. The right to file briefs was waived by all the
parties. Upon the basis of the parties' stipulation of facts, and upon
the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a Puerto Rican corporation, is engaged in the re-
fining of sugar at its Mercedita, Puerto Rico, place of business. Dur-
ing the calendar year 1960, a representative period, Respondent re-
fined, sold, and shipped from its refinery at Mercedita, Puerto Rico,
products valued in excess of $50,000 to points outside the Common-
wealth of Puerto Rico.
The Respondent admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The facts as stipulated show that Arroyo was certified as bargain-
ing agent for all cleaning ( or maintenance ) employees , stevedores,
bag sewers , waterboys , and tally clerks at Respondent 's warehouse and
piers in Playa de Ponce, Puerto Rico , on March 10 , 1960 .1 There-
1 This unit was found appropriate by the Board in a Decision and Direction of Election
found at 125 NLRB 384 (Case No 24-RC-1288)
2 The complaint alleges, and Respondent admits , that the appropriate unit consists of all
cleaning ( or maintenance ) employees , stevedores , bag sewers , waterboys , and tally clerks
at Respondent 's warehouse and piers in Playa de Ponce , Puerto Rico, excluding all execu-
tive, administrative , professional , and office clerical employees , guards , watchmen, and
430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
after, negotiations began for a collective-bargaining agreement be-
tween Arroyo and Respondent, to succeed the contract of Union de
Trabajadores de Muelles y Ramas Anexas de Puerto Rico, District
Council, Ind., which was scheduled to, and did, expire on Decem-
ber 31,1960.
During negotiations Arroyo, on several occasions, requested the
inclusion of union-security and dues checkoff provisions in the parties'
contract. The parties were in agreement as to everything except
union-security and dues checkoff provisions, regarding which the
Respondent refused to bargain on the ground that it was precluded
from granting such provisions to an individual bargaining representa-
tive by the court's decision in Joseph J. Schultz v. N.L.R.B. (The
Grand Union Co.), 284 F. 2d 254 (C.A.D.C.) 3 On December 28,
1960, Arroyo and the Respondent entered into a collective-bargaining
agreement without the inclusion of union-security and dues checkoff
provisions, with the understanding that Arroyo was reserving his
rights concerning the negotiation of such provisions, and upon assur-
ance by Respondent that the duty to bargain for such provisions would
be dependent upon final disposition of the charges in the instant case.
The contract was signed by Arroyo as an individual.
After the case had been transferred to the Board, but before a
decision had been rendered, Arroyo, on October 10, 1961, filed a motion
which stated that Respondent had granted him, in the form of a stipu-
lation, union-security and dues checkoff provisions, and Arroyo re-
quested the Board to issue an "order confirming the Regional Direc-
tor's and the Petitioner's points." The stipulated agreement was
signed by Arroyo as president of Local 1280, International Union of
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, and provided
that its provisions were to be incoporated into the December 1960
agreement executed Arroyo and Respondent. As Arroyo's reason for
filing the motion was not clear, the Board, on November 24, 1961,
issued a notice to show cause why Arroyo's motion of October 10 should
not be treated as a motion for permission to withdraw his charges
herein. Arroyo's answer of November 29, 1961, stated that this was
not his intent, and he urged the Board to proceed on the record before
it.
In the meantime, on November 1, 1961, Arroyo had filed a "Motion
Requesting Amendment of [the] Certification" issued to him in Case
supervisors as defined in the Act . Only the warehouse and piers at Playa de Ponce are
involved in this proceeding.
8In the cited case, the court held, contrary to the Board ' s decision in 123 NLRB 1665,
that an individual is not a labor organization within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3)
proviso permitting the execution of union - security agreements The court remanded the
case to the Board and, in a supplemental decision ( 132 NLRB 1037 ), the Board accepted
the court 's opinion as the law of the case and found that the execution of a union-
security agreement with a certified individual representative violated Section 8(a) (3)
and (1 ) of the Act.
SERVICE & MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES UNION, NO. 399 431
No. 24-RC-1288, mentioned above. In that motion he respectfully re-
quested that the name "Insular Labor's Association Local 1280, Inter-
national Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-
CIO" 4 be substituted for the name "Waldelmiro Arroyo." The Board,
on February 21, 1962, issued an order granting the motion to amend
the certification for the reasons stated therein.
In view of the foregoing, and especially in view of the fact that
Respondent has negotiated and granted union-security and dues check-
off provisions to Local 1280 (now the certified bargaining representa-
tive), the Board hereby finds that it will not effectuate the policies of
the Act to decide the issues raised in the complaint. Accordingly,
the complaint herein shall be dismissed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Puerto Rican American Sugar Refinery, Inc., is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the Act.
2. It will not effectuate the policies of the Act to decide the issues
raised in the complaint.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
4 Hereinafter called Local 1280.
Service and Maintenance Employees Union , Local 399, AFL-
CIO and The William J . Burns International Detective Agency,
Inc. Case No. 21-CC-392. March 21, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 3,1961, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued his Inter-
mediate Report herein, finding that the Respondent had engaged in
unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist there-
from and take affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Re-
port attached hereto. Thereafter the Respondent, the General Coun-
sel, and the Charging Party filed exceptions and supporting briefs.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and
finds no prejudicial error. The rulings are affirmed. The Board has
considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in this case,1 and adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following
modifications :
The pertinent facts, more fully set forth in the Intermediate Report,
follow.
3 Respondent's request for oral argument is denied as the record , the exceptions , and the
briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties.
136 NLRB No. 34.