Puerto Rico Telephone Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 25, 1964

149 N.L.R.B. 1082 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

1082 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is further recommended that unless , on or before 20 days from the date of this
Decision and Recommended Order, the Respondent has notified the said Regional
Director , in writing, that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the action aforesaid.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
HEAT AND FROST INSULATORS AND ASBESTOS WORKERS, LOCAL No. 53
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage any individual employed by
contractor McCarty-Branton or by any other person engaged in commerce or in
an industry affecting commerce , to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course
of his employment to use, process , transport , or otherwise handle or work on
any goods , articles, or commodities , or to perform any services ; or threaten,
coerce, or restrain McCarty-Branton or any other person engaged in commerce
or in an industry affecting commerce , with an object of forcing or requiring
contractors McCarty-Branton, H. C. Wiese, Inc, any contractor member of
Master Insulators Association of New Orleans & Baton Rouge , Louisiana, Inc ,
to cease doing business with each other or with Humble Oil and Refining Com-
pany or any other person , in connection with a contract for labor only anyone
of these contractors may have to install insulation material and fittings prefabri-
cated by Reilly-Benton Company, Inc ., or any other person.
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HEAT AND
FROST INSULATORS AND ASBESTOS WORK-
ERS, LOCAL No. 53,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Interested persons may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office,
T6024 Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola, New Orleans, Louisiana, Telephone
No. 529-2411 , Extension 6396, if they have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions.
Puerto Rico Telephone Company and Union de Empleados de la
Industria del Telefono de Puerto Rico , Local 963, Sindicato de
Trabajadores Packinghouse , United Packinghouse Food & Al-
lied Workers , District 9 of Puerto Rico, AFL-CIO. Case No.
f4-CA-1833. November 25, 196 .
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 13, 1964, Trial Examiner Paul Bisgyer issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled case, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. He also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain
other unfair labor practices and recommended the dismissal of the
complaint as to them. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief.
149 NLRB No. 110.
PUERTO RICO TELEPHONE COMPANY 1083
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 ( (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the -Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and
Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
entire record in this case, including the Trial Examiner's Decision,
the exceptions and brief,' and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order the order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner, and orders that the Respondent,
Puerto Rico Telephone Company, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Rec=
ommended Order.
i The Respondent's request for oral argument Is hereby denied as the record, including
the exceptions and brief, adequately presents the issues and positions of the parties.
z In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt pro forma the Trial Examiner's find-
ing that the termination of Sanchez did not violate Section 8(a) (4) of the Act.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, with all the parties represented, was heard before Trial Examiner
Paul Bisgyer from January 13 through 22, 1964, on the amended complaint of the
General Counsel,1 and the answer of Puerto Rico Telephone Company, herein called
the Respondent. The issues raised by the pleadings and litigated herein were whether
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, by discharging employee Delia Vazquez de Sanchez on or about October 7,
1963, because of her union activities; whether it violated Section 8(a)(4) of the Act
by discharging this employee because, at her instance, the Union filed unfair labor
practice charges against the Respondent on the basis of information furnished by her;
and whether, by this and other conduct, the Respondent interfered with, restrained,
and coerced employees in the exercise of their statutory rights in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. The parties waived oral argument at the close of the hearing but
thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondent filed briefs which were carefully
considered.
Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a Delaware corporation, is a public utility engaged in furnishing
telephonic communication throughout the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and, in
conjunction with another company, in furnishing such services between Puerto Rico
and points outside the Commonwealth. In the course of its operations, the Respond-
ent annually imports materials and equipment valued in excess of $50,000 which are
shipped directly to it from points outside Puerto Rico. Its annual gross volume of
business exceeds $500,000.
'The original charge was filed and a copy was served on the Respondent on October 3,
1963. An amended charge was filed on October 17; 1963, and a copy was served on the
Respondent the same day.
1084 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I find that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act and that it will effectuate statutory policies to assert jurisdic-
tion herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
It is undisputed, and I find, that Union de Empleados de la Industria del Telefono de
Puerto Rico, Local 963, Sindicato de Trabajadores Packinghouse, United Packing-
house Food & Allied Workers, District 9 of Puerto Rico, AFL-CIO, herein called
the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction
This is not the usual type of case of an employer, determined to keep his business
nonunion, discharging an employee who is active in the union's organizational cam-
paign On the contrary, it is clear that the Respondent has maintained bargaining
relations with labor organizations since 1943, its last contract having been executed
with the Union and its parent International on October 28, 1962, for a 2-year term
expiring on October 27, 1964 However, during the contract term, the Respondent
and the Union have been in dispute over the subcontracting of certain work with the
consequent layoff of a large number of employees in the bargaining unit This matter
has been the subject of the contractual grievance procedure and of unfair labor prac-
tice charges which were heard by another Trial Examiner 2 The central question
presented in the instant case is whether the Respondent discharged Delia Vazquez de
Sanchez because of her union activities reflected, in part, in her active participation in
this dispute, as the General Counsel contends, or because of her alleged inefficiency
and insubordination, as the Respondent vigorously urges. The pertinent facts are
recited below.
B. The evidence
1. Sanchez' employment history
Sanchez was in the Respondent's employ for about 3 years before she was dis-
charged on October 3, 1963,; under circumstances hereinafter discussed She was a
service representative in the subscribers' service department,`' at first assigned to the
correspondence section under Supervisor Huyke, and thereafter and until her dis-
charge, to the desk handling specified accounts of telephone subscribers under the
supervision of Georgina Colon. In the latter capacity, her duties encompassed, among
others, the collection of overdue accounts, crediting payments on commercial stubs
from customers' bills or other office memorandums, sending delinquent subscribers
10-day payment notices, making courtesy telephone calls to subscribers to remind
them of overdue bills, and ordering the suspension of telephone service for nonpay-
ment of bills and its restoration on payment. Except for the incidents allegedly
prompting her discharge, Sanchez' competency, industry, and efficiency were beyond
reproach and merited praise from various supervisors under whom she worked.5
2. Sanchez' union activities; her election as a delegate for her department
in November 1962, the Union and the Respondent became involved in a labor
dispute over the Respondent's action in subcontracting work which caused the layoff
of a large number of employees. Apparently dissatisfied with the incumbent union
leadership, a group led by employee Julio Torres Martinez and others formed a Com-
mittee for the Democratic Reorganization of the Telephone Union This committee
consisted of some 16 employees, of whom Sanchez was one, and had as its objectives
the election of new officers and a board of directors and a militant opposition to the
Respondent's subcontracting practice. For her part, Sanchez prepared leaflets, dis-
tributed them in front of the building where she worked, and engaged in other conduct
to promote and publicize the objectives of this committee. Although aware of the
Puerto Rico Telephone Company, Case No. 24-CA-1739, now pending befoie the
Board on exceptions
Unless othemise indicated, all dates refer to the year 1963.
Interchangeably referred to in the recoid as the connneicial department
Sanchez was designated by her supervisor, Georgina Colon, as the service repiesenta-
ti%e to be observed by an official of the respondent's parent organization, who was mak-
ing a study of company procedures. and to explain to him the operations of her desk.
PUERTO RICO TELEPHONE COMPANY 1085
existence of this committee and the identity of the participants including Sanchez,
there is no evidence that the Respondent interfered in any way with the committee's
activities.
On August 29 a union election was held on company premises. At least one
objective of the committee was achieved in the election of a number of its members as
officers and directors. Among others, Julio Torres Martinez became president and
three fellow service representatives of Sanchez became directors a Notification of the
results of this election was given to the Respondent which thereupon recognized the
new administration.
On September 24 an election of union delegates was also held on company premises.
Sanchez and Carmen Marquez, both service representatives, were designated delegates
for the subscribers' service department.? On September 30 the Respondent was
officially advised of the names of the newly elected delegates.
On September 27 a conference between the Union and the Respondent was sched-
uled to be held at the offices of the secretary of labor for Puerto Rico concerning the
subcontracting and layoff dispute. As the conference was to take place during work-
ing hours, Union President Julio Torres requested Ruben D. Torres, the manager of
the subscribers' service department for the metropolitan area, to excuse service repre-
sentatives Sanchez, Costa, and Porrata in order to attend this meeting. At first
Manager Torres agreed to release only the latter two. According to his testimony, he
could not space the simultaneous absence of three employees without seriously inter-
fering with the department's operations and therefore permitted only Costa and
Porrata to leave in preference to Sanchez because they were board members who
occupied more important positions in the Union However, after Union President
Julio Torres complained to Rafael Orellana, the Respondent's director of industrial
relations, Sanchez was excused to attend the labor department conference
At that meeting, Sanchez, who was one of about six union representatives, took
issue with the remarks of Respondent's Vice President Neff that the employees
involved in the dispute were not trainable and lacked ability to learn new techniques.
Similar disagreement with Neff's views was expressed by Porrata
Because the parties were unable to solve their differences, the Union called a mem-
bership meeting on September 29 at Central High School to consider strike action As
a delegate, Sanchez made arrangements for the attendance and seating of employees
she represented in her department. Approximately 700 members were present at this
meeting and voted to strike at such opportune time as a committee of 5 members
chosen from among the Union's board of directors should designate This meeting
had wide newspaper coverage. It appears that no strike was ever called.
3. Changes in commercial operations; private interviews of Sanchez, Danielsen,
and other employees
There is no question that at this time the Respondent's commercial operations were
in need of improvement. The record reveals an inordinate delay in answering cor-
respondence, a backlog of work on the desk of service representatives, and poor
communication between various sections. To meet this situation the quality control
department devised changes in methods and procedures. On September 30 and
October 1, Manager Ruben D Torres held meetings with the employees to explain
these changes which were to be instituted immediately. According to Sanchez' undis-
puted testimony, Torres, during the September 30 meeting, also told employees that
he was aware that a strike was in the air but come what may he would continue to be
their friend. It is conceded that this reorganization and the resultant transfers of
employees were motivated by legitimate business considerations.8
On October 2 Manager Torres separately interviewed Sanchez and two of her
coworkers 9 in the presence of their immediate supervisor, Georgina Colon, concern-
ing their new assignments. There is a serious conflict in testimony, however, critical
to the General Counsel's case, whether Torres went much further in his interview of
Sanchez.
Sanchez testified that, in addition to advising her of her new assignment, Torres told
her that he was aware of her union activities both in and outside the office and that
a Maria Toires de Costa, Freddie Porrata, and Raquel Rodriguez.
7Delegates for other departments were also elected at this time
8 The General Counsel does not contend that any unfair labor practices were coimnitted
on September 30 or October 1
9I3aydee Santiago and Milagros Craterole de Jimenez who, however , did not appear as
witnesses
1086 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
she should discontinue them because they were interfering with her work . Sanchez
further testified that Torres expressed surprise that she would get herself so involved
in such activities and stated that he wondered what would be the reaction of her
father, who was a friend of his , to this conduct. Referring to the Union 's contemplated
strike, Sanchez continued , Torres stated that he was unable to understand how she or
any employee could support a strike with knowledge that there were employees who
had to provide for large families .1 0 Sanchez also testified that Torres told her that
he knew how to get rid of an employee if he wanted to; that there was a "bad atmos-
phere" on the seventh floor where there was an active union group, of which she was
the "organizer"; that he was moving her to the third floor for this reason , 11 that he
did not want to see her in any group during or outside working hours engaging in
union discussions ; and that this was her final opportunity to withdraw from union
activities . Sanchez further testified that Torres warned her that if anyone learned
what happened at this interview , she would have a "hard time ." In reply to Torres'
ultimatum that she quit her union activities , Sanchez testified , she told him she would
not do so. According to Sanchez , this elicited Torres ' retort that she "should get out
because that would be best or more convenient " for her . Sanchez also testified that
she left the interview , which lasted about 3 hours , 12 in a perturbed state.
Contradicting Sanchez ' testimony, Torres and Colon denied that the strike or
Sanchez' union activities were mentioned during her interview . According to their
combined verions , the discussions were cordial and related principally to the proce-
dural changes necessitated by the reorganization and to Torres ' explanation of Sanchez'
new assignment , which basically was the same type of job she then had but involved
handling different accounts . They admitted that this was work Sanchez was fully
capable of performing In addition , they testified that the conversation turned to
personal matters concerning Sanchez ' father who was a friend of Torres.
In the afternoon Manager Torres also spoke to service representative Danielsen, at
the request of Supervisor Colon. According to Colon, she made this request because
she noticed that a marked change in Danielsen's former cooperative attitude toward
her had taken place, and that something was bothering Danielsen . 13 She further testi-
fied that she thought that , by talking the situation over with Danielsen , Torres and
she could learn the reason for Danielsen 's discomfiture and thereby be in a position to
remedy it . However, Colon testified , Danielsen did not reveal the reason in the
ensuing conversation.
Concerning this interview , Danielsen gave the following testimony . Torres informed
her that she was summoned , at the request of Colon, because there was a certain
"atmosphere" on the seventh floor where she was working which was prejudicial and
not good for her When Danielsen asked Torres to clarify what he meant, Torres
told her it was something that could not be seen but could be felt. However, he
warned that if comments continued to be made and the "atmosphere " persisted on the
seventh floor , necessary measures would have to be taken to correct it. At some point
in the discussions , Colon stated that certain persons gave bad advice to others Daniel-
sen retorted that all the women employees were over 21 and could distinguish between
good and bad . To illustrate some of his remarks, Torres drew on a piece of paper a
circle which was divided by a line. In terms not too clear, Torres explained to Daniel-
sen that "the line represented the union . On the top and underneath were he ... and
if we took our positions , if I were to fall up and he were to fall down , neither one of us
would be giving the company our maximum ." Although Danielsen conceded that
neither Torres nor any supervisor "directly" referred to her union activities , she testi-
fied that during this interview , "she was spoken to in parables."
10 Sanchez testified that , during the interview, Georgina Colon mentioned her own ex-
perience as a leader in a prior unsuccessful strike
11 The General Counsel , however , does not contend that this transfer independently
violated the Act It is also noted that Georgina Colon was also transferred to the claims
section on the first floor
L Two employees , Carmen Maria Melendez and Maria Isabel Velazquez de Danielsen,
who observed Sanchez enter and leave the conference room, corroborated Sanchez' testi-
mony with respect to the duration of the interview . According to Manager Toires and
Supervisor Colon , however , the interview did not last more than an hour It appears
that the other two employees who were interviewed concerning their new assignments,
remained in the conference room between 20 and 45 minutes
13 Colon also testified that she previously had spoken to another employee , Jimenez,
whom she had observed was also acting uncomfortably , in order to learn the reason
Colon further testified that Jimenez did not disclose anything but suggested that she
discuss the matter with Danielsen, who «as undergoing the saute experience as Jimenez.
PUERTO RICO TELEPHONE COMPANY 1087
Torres testified, in substance, that Colon requested him to speak to Danielsen
because she had noticed that Danielsen's work was not as good as usual; that he asked
Danielsen whether there was something interfering with her work which he and Colon
could remedy, and that, when Danielsen replied that she did not understand his ques-
tion, he referred to their responsibility to the Company to be "satisfied or happy and
do good work." Torres further testified that he demonstrated to Danielsen what he
meant by drawing a circle, which he stated represented the organization of the Com-
pany of which the employees and supervisors were a part; that he explained to her
that it was to the mutual advantage of the supervisors and employees to cooperate in
doing a good job, and that he added that "in all companies or a great majority of the
companies there were unions and that even though there were differences between the
employees and the hierarchy of the company, that whether one was a member of the
union they could work together in faith and trust."
Sanchez and Danielsen impressed me as credible witnesses not disposed to fabricate
testimony. Concerning Sanchez' interview, I find it difficult to believe, as the Respond-
ent would have me do, that a conference which, according to Sanchez and the cor-
roborating testimony of two disinterested employee witnesses, lasted some 3 hours, was
devoted simply to informing Sanchez about her new assignment entailing duties she
was then performing and to personal conversation about her father. On the contrary,
the likelihood that union activities and the Union's contemplated strike were men-
tioned during Sanchez' interview is indicated by Danielsen's testimony that when she
was interviewed, Torres and Colon expressed concern over a "prejudicial atmosphere"
prevailing on the seventh floor where Sanchez, Danielsen, and others worked More-
over, as found below, a similar concern over the "bad atmosphere" on the seventh
floor, which was created by union discussions, and with which the Respondent intended
to cope by taking drastic measures, was also voiced by Torres in his conversation with
employee Costa, a union board member, in their conversation regarding Sanchez'
discharge. Accordingly, I credit the testimony of Sanchez and Danielsen.14
4. The October 3 incident; Sanchez' discharge
On October 3, about 8 a.m., Supervisor Georgina Colon summoned Sanchez to her
desk and, pursuant to instructions received from Manager Torres the day before,'5
handed Sanchez a document entitled "Memorandum For Record (Confidential)"
dated September 27 to read. The memorandum related to Sanchez' alleged negligence
in disconnecting telephone service of a customer, Jose G. Bloise, on September 9.
Although Torres learned of this disconnection on September 11, Torres testified that
he prepared this memorandum about a day, or several days, before September 27 and
gave it to his secretary to type and that thereafter he sent a copy to Colon.16
After reading this memorandum Sanchez, who was in an advanced stage of preg-
nancy, became visibly nervous and upset and returned to her desk and began crying.
While seated at her desk with her back to Colon, Sanchez openly exclaimed whether
she was dealing with a "Judas." Thereupon, Colon, to whom this remark was seem-
ingly directed, answered that Sanchez was bleeding from her own wounds and that
what had happened to her she had brought upon herself after she had been warned.
The work routine in this area was temporarily interrupted while several employees
tried to calm Sanchez and to find out what had happened. Apprehensive that the
memorandum episode and the October 2 interview indicated "that they were working
something against" her, Sanchez asked one of her coworkers to telephone the Union's
attorney, Landing, to arrange for filing unfair labor practice charges.
In this unsettled situation, Manager Torres, who had been notified of this occur-
rence, arrived at the scene, followed shortly thereafter by employee Costa, a union
14 It is noted that the day after her October 2 interview, and before she was notified
of her discharge, Sanchez caused the Union to file charges of interference, restraint, and
coercion against the Respondent based on the events occurring on October 2, which she
supported by her affidavit
15 Torres testified that he issued these instructions to Supervisor Colon in the after-
noon of October 2 after his superior, Armando Colon Vargas, general manager of sub-
scribers' service department, had advised him that Sanchez had also wrongfully dis-
connected telephone service of another customer, Ventura Martinez Monroig Torres
turther testified that he wanted Colon to show Sanchez this memorandum before she re-
ported to her new assignment in order to impress upon her the necessity of avoiding a
similar occurrence
11 Colon testified that when she received the memorandum on or about September 27,
she merely put it in her personnel file without showing it to Sanchez until Torres directed
her on October 2 to do it
1088 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
board member. Torres and Costa attempted to speak to Sanchez in her distressed
state but to no avail. Torres then asked Sanchez to leave, which she did when her
husband came for her 17
On leaving the seventh floor office, Torres told Costa that he wanted to discuss this
incident with her Although Costa was at first reluctant to do so unless another union
representative was present, she agreed. On their way to the first floor, Torres and
Costa met General Manager Colon Vargas, Torres' superior. As to what transpired
in the ensuing discussions, the participants gave somewhat different versions
Costa's account appears to be more complete and is as follows. Colon Vargas asked
Torres what had happened on the seventh floor Torres told him that Sanchez had
become upset when Supervisor Colon showed her the memorandum relating to the
Bloise telephone disconnection. Colon Vargas then replied that Sanchez was no
longer in the department because she had telephoned Bloise and "had bribed him"
not to inform the Company about his disconnected telephone service because it would
prejudice her position with the Company.18 Costa then interjected that she and
Torres were about to discuss the Sanchez-Colon incident. Colon Vargas, however,
repeated that Sanchez was "definitely out."
According to Torres' testimony, when he and Costa met Colon Vargas, the latter
was aware of the incident but not the details which he (Torres) furnished at that time.
Torres further testified that Colon Vargas then responded that on account of that
occurrence Sanchez, for all purposes, "was already out of the company."
Colon Vargas testified that he learned of the incident when he observed no work
being performed in the seventh floor office; that, upon meeting Torres and Costa, he
asked Torres what had occurred and Torres related that Supervisor Colon had called
Sanchez' attention to certain "irregularities" in her work and that Sanchez assumed a
violent and disrespectful attitude toward Colon in front of the employees, and that,
taking into consideration these "irregularities," of which he was aware, he (Colon
Vargas) decided then and there, and advised Torres, that Sanchez would have to be
separated from the Company.
Following the foregoing meeting, Torres and Costa proceeded to an office where
they talked over the Sanchez-Colon incident. Costa testified that Torres stated that
there was a "bad atmosphere" on the seventh floor, created by union discussions; that
the Company was going to stop these discussions and, if it found anyone engaging in
them during working hours,19 it intended to take drastic action; that "for a time now
union matters were ruining the personnel"; and that there was a "block" on the seventh
floor responsible for it. Costa further testified that she told Torres that she was not
aware of those conditions on the seventh floor and that, as a union representative, she
offered her cooperation to correct the situation. In reply to her request for an oppor-
tunity to study Sanchez' case because she did not know the details, Torres stated that
the case was no longer open for consideration, that the matter was out of his hands,
and that a decision had already been made.
Torres did not specifically contradict Costa's foregoing testimony. He simply
testified that during the course of his conversation with Costa concerning the Sanchez-
Colon incident, he told her that something had to be done when a supervisor is denied
respect for her authority.
Costa impressed me as a candid and openminded witness whose testimony, in many
major respects not directly contradicted, persuades me of its truth Moreover, as will
later be discussed, her testimony sheds light on the Respondent's motivation under-
lying Sanchez' summary discharge, where the Respondent's asserted reasons fail to
withstand scrutiny
5. Subsequent events
A few hours after leaving the Respondent's premises, Sanchez and the Union's
attorney went to the Board's Regional Office where the Union filed an unfair labor
practice charge, alleging a violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.2° In support of
17, The foregoing recital is based on substantially undisputed testimony. Whatevei vari-
ances there are, they relate to unimportant matters not affecting the basic issue of
discrimination.
18 Bloise credibly denied that Sanchez ei er requested hun not to report her to the
Company.
19 No evidence was adduced that union discussions were carried on during working hours.
'0 Specifically, the charge alleged that "Since on or about October 2, 1963-[the Re-
spondent] has interrogated employees regarding their union activities and has threatened
them with a change in tenure and other conditions of employment because of such activi-
ties and has advised employees of their impending transfers because they engaged in
activities protected by Section 7 of the Act."
PUERTO- RICO TELEPHONE COMPANY 1089
the charge , Sanchez executed an affidavit . At that time, the Respondent had not yet
notified Sanchez of her discharge.
Later that day Sanchez visited a doctor who, after an examination , issued a medical
certificate , stating that Sanchez required a week of bed rest . The next day Attorney
Landing delivered the certificate to Rafael Orellana , the Respondent 's director of
industrial relations , and advised him of the filing of the unfair labor practice charge.
On October 10 the Union mailed to the Respondent two other medical certificates to
justify Sanchez ' absence from work, which the Respondent received on October 11.
6. The Respondent 's notification of discharge to Sanchez ; asserted reasons
In the later afternoon of October 11 Sanchez received from the Respondent a
registered letter dated October 7, signed by Manager Torres, stating as follows:
I regret to advise you that effective October 3, 1963, you were separated from
the position you have been holding in this enterprise as Service Representative.
This action has been motivated by your frequent deficiencies in your work as
well as by your acts of indiscipline and insubordination towards your supervisor.
milted we consider your separation necessary.
Sanchez' alleged insubordination mentioned in the letter relates to the October 3
episode discussed above. As for her "frequent deficiencies " in work performance also
alluded to in the letter, they involved the improper disconnection of telephone service
of two subscribers , Jose G. Bloise and Ventura Martinez Monroig , for nonpayment of
charges, although payment had previously been made to the Company . In Bloise's
case, it appears that payment had been made and recorded in the accounting depart
ment on August 27, but had not been noted in the commercial stubs pertaining to his
account at the time when Sanchez ordered the disconnection . This situation , however,
was promptly rectified and service was restored on September 11, after Bloise advised
Sanchez of the payment 21 For a similar reason, Monroig's telephone service was
also suspended on September 11, although payment had been made to the Company
on August 23.
There is no question that Sanchez , as the service representative in charge - of -the
above accounts , was responsible for the disconnection . However, whether this was
the result of a negligent failure on her part to make timely credit notations on the
commercial stubs or to verify the status of the customers ' accounts from certain list-
ings kept on her supervisor 's desk, or whether this was due to a burdensome workload
or poor operating procedures or interoffice communication need not be determined
because the Respondent quite clearly did not regard such disconnection a sufficient
reason for discharge . 22 Thus, it is undisputed that when Manager Torres spoke to
a It is the responsibility of the service representative handling a particular account to
make the appropriate credit notations of payment on a customer 's commercial stub on- the
basis of information transmitted to her from the accounting department or other sources.
There is evidence in the record suggesting that the problem of improper suspension
of telephone service could be attributable to inefficient operating methods and procedures
which the Respondent was endeavoring to remedy. In a letter the Respondent received
on October 2 from the Public Service Commission of Puerto Rico, complaining about the
suspension of Monrolg ' s telephone service, the Commission stated
This situation is not confined to this case alone During the months of August
and September about six similar cases have. been brought to the attention of the
Commission It is obvious that there is a serious and significant Administrative
tault in that the Company has no record of having received a check 30 days after it
having been sent . We can not point out in this case to the specific date on which
the Company received the check but we can point out specifically that the Company
deposited it on August 27, 1963 and that when our Engineer Mr. Velazquez per-
sonally inquired on September 16th , that is 19 days after the Company had de-
posited it, he was informed that said check had not been received . Even on Septem-
ber 19th our Engineer Mr . Orraca called again and he was also informed that the
check for $6 28 had not been received , which was 22 days after the Company had
deposited it.
Administrative faults like this are the ones that are causing a very noticeable un-
favorable reaction on the part of Company subscribers . We believe the Company
should undertake a general revision of the system and find out the correction of the
faults as the one pointed out. Besides prejudicing the relations between the sub-
scribers and the Company , the discontinuation of telephone service may bring about
claims for damages against the Company that can be easily avoided.
770-076-65-vol . 149-70
We sincerely regret this decision , but in view of the gravity of the faults com-
1090 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sanchez about the Bloise telephone disconnection in the evening of September l 1 and
was advised by her that service had already been restored, Torres did not comment on
the disconnection, much less reprimand, discipline, or warn her against its repetition.
Indeed, he took no action until at least 2 weeks later when he prepared the memoran-
dum dated September 27, ascribing the disconnection to Sanchez' negligence and lack
of interest in the case,23 without first giving her an opportunity to explain, and there-
after sent a copy to Supervisor Colon without any instructions to exhibit or discuss
the matter with Sanchez Curiously enough, September 27 was the very day Torres
reluctantly released Sanchez from work to enable her to attend a meeting between the
Union and the Respondent at the office of the Department of Labor of Puerto Rico.
Also indicating that an improper disconnection was not considered a ground for
discharge is the fact that Torres neither terminated, nor was he ordered to terminate,
Sanchez' employment on October 2 after General Manager Colon Vargas apprised
him that Sanchez had also improperly caused the disconnection of Monroig's telephone
service. Moreover, as previously found, Colon Vargas, upon being informed of the
details of the Sanchez-Colon incident, referred only to his unsubstantiated charge of
Sanchez' bribery of Bloise when he told Torres and Union Representative Costa that
Sanchez was to be separated from the Company.
The record is also clear that other service representatives had ordered suspension of
telephone service for nonpayment of bills, although the subscribers had previously
paid them. However, there is no evidence that any service iepresentative was ever
reprimanded or disciplined, or that any record memorandum was ever made of such
error. In fact, although the Public Service Commission letter, quoted in footnote 22,
referred to six cases similar to Monroig's, Colon Vargas admitted that he made no
investigation of them but only looked into the Monroig matter whose account Sanchez
handled.
C. Concluding findings
1. With respect to interference, restraint, and coercion of employees
I have heretofore found that Manager Torres, during his 3-hour interview of
Sanchez in the presence of the latter's immediate supervisor, Georgina Colon, directed
Sanchez to discontinue her union activities because they interfered with her work;
warned her that he knew how to get rid of an employee if he wanted to, stated that
he was aware that she was the "organizer" of an active union group which created a
"bad atmosphere" on the seventh floor where she worked; that he did not want to see
her in any group discussing union matters during or outside working hours; and that
this was her final opportunity to withdraw from union activities; and then threatened
to give her a "hard time" if anyone learned what had transpired at this interview. I
have also found that Torres summoned Danielsen, Sanchez' coworker, to a private
conference with him and Colon and warned her that a certain "atmosphere" prevailing
on the seventh floor was prejudicial to her and that if that "atmosphere" and the
discussions continued, necessary measures would be taken to correct the situation
Although Torres did not directly mention the Union in these remarks, I have no doubt
that they were intended as a veiled admonition that support of the Union would lead
to reprisals Plainly, Torres' conduct infringed upon employees' statutory rights and
violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, especially when viewed in the context of Sanchez'
subsequent discriminatory discharge found below.
2. With respect to Sanchez' discharge for union activities
The General Counsel contends that the record establishes that the Respondent dis-
criminatorily discharged Sanchez because of her union activities and sympathies,
and thereby violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act. The Respondent, on the
other hand, strenuously maintains that the evidence does not support such a find-
ing but, on the contrary, shows that Sanchez was discharged for inefficiency and
insubordination.
Mindful of the Respondent's history of collective bargaining and the absence of
evidence of interference with its employees' organizational activities before the
events discussed above, I would be less than candid were I not to acknowledge that
a difficult factual question is here presented concerning the Respondent's motivation
underlying the discharge. However, from my careful appraisal of the evidence I am
led to the conclusion that, were it not for Sanchez' union activities as a leader in her
section, her employment would not have been terminated.
=a It appears that this was the first time that a memorandum for the record was made
of an improper disconnection of telephone service
PUERTO RICO TELEPHONE COMPANY 1091
As I have heretofore found, Sanchez was a competent and industrious employee
with an unblemished record, except for the two instances of erroneous disconnection
of telephone service which could be attributable to any number of reasons Prob-
ably, in recognition of this latter fact, the Respondent had not regarded improper
disconnections as grounds for discharge and retained Sanchez until the episode with
her supervisor, Georgina Colon, on October 3. However, this alleged act of insub-
ordination, which ostensibly precipitated the discharge, cannot be viewed in isola-
tion but should be considered in the context of the events that preceded, as well as
followed, the incident. Accordingly, the evidence is clear that only a day before
Sanchez was subjected to a 3-hour private interview by Manager Torres, in the pres-
ence of Supervisor Colon, in which Torres voiced his displeasure over the Union's
contemplated strike, and repeatedly warned Sanchez to cease her union activities and
that this was her final opportunity to do so Having stubbornly refused to heed
these warnings, Sanchez was confronted the next day with an unprecedented, adverse
personnel report ielating to the disconnection of subscriber Bloise's telephone service
which had occurred more than 3 weeks before and for which she had previously
never been reprimanded Sanchez' outburst, under these circumstances, is readily
understandable, especially in light of Torres' prophetic remark to her the previous
day that he knew how to get rid of an employee if he wanted to. Her discharge,
following as it did closely on the heels of that incident without a full investigation or
prior warning, is certainly rendered suspect. Moreover, it appears to be more than
an odd coincidence that the report Supervisor Colon showed Sanchez on that occa-
sion was dated September 27, which was the day Torres had reluctantly excused her
from work to attend, as a union representative, the labor department conference
between the Union and the Respondent concerning the subcontracting dispute, in
support of which the employees later voted to strike. This permission was granted
only after intercession of the Union's president with the Respondent's director of
industrial relations.
Also reflecting unfavorably on the motivating reason for Sanchez' discharge is the
fact that, in taking that action, General Manager Colon Vargas alluded to Sanchez'
alleged misconduct in bribing subscriber Bloise not to report her to the Respondent.
It is significant that Bloise denied at the hearing that there was any truth to that
charge.
That the Respondent was primarily concerned with Sanchez' union activities on
the seventh floor, rather than her asserted deficiencies, in discharging her is revealed
in Manager Torres' remarks to employee Costa, a union director, during their con-
versation concerning the Sanchez-Colon incident. In that conversation, Torres, who
admitted at the hearing that he had recommended Sanchez' discharge, deplored the
"bad atmosphere" on the seventh floor created by union discussions which were
"ruining the personnel," and warned that the Company intended to take drastic
measures against anyone engaging in such conduct during working hours. Perti-
nently, in his interview with Sanchez only the day before, Torres accused her of
being the "organizer" of the union group responsible for the "bad atmosphere" on
the seventh floor. Later that day, Torres admonished Danielsen, a coworker of
Sanchez, that that "atmosphere" was prejudicial to her and would lead to corrective
action, while her supervisor, Colon, added that Danielsen was getting poor advice
from certain people.
It is well settled that an employer may discharge an employee for a good, bad, or
no reason at all, provided he does not do it for union membership or activities.
However, while it is true, as the Respondent argues, that it is not for the Board to
determine the sufficiency or fairness of an employer's nondiscriminatory reason for a
discharge, it is equally well established that where, as here, an employer's explana-
tion, "fails to stand under scrutiny," such failure casts doubt on the innocence of his
motives and strengthens a possible inference of discrimination.24
In view of the foregoing, particularly Sanchez' good employment record; the
abruptness of her discharge without prior warning or investigation of the alleged inci-
dent of insubordination which ostensibly precipitated the discharge; Torres' preoccu-
24 N L 1t B. v Thomas W Dant, Robert E. Dant, et al , d/b/a Dent ct Russell, Ltd,
207 F 2d 165, 167 (CA 9) ; North Carolina Finishing Company v N.h R B., 133 F. 2d
714, 718 (C A 4), cert. denied 320 US 738 There is evidence in the record that em-
ployee Danielsen on one occasion was guilty of what appears to be it more serious act of
insubordination against her supervisor and yet no disciplinary action was taken against her
1092 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pation with the "bad [union] atmosphere" on the seventh floor for which he primarily
blamed Sanchez; his efforts to force Sanchez to abandon her union activities; and the
Respondent's dubious reliance on the reasons advanced for the discharge; all com-
bine to convince me that the discharge was motivated by a desire to eliminate an
active union adherent who refused to heed the admonition of her superior to cease
her union activities. The fact that the Respondent did not discharge all union adher-
ents and selected only Sanchez does not exculpate its discrimination against her.
Clearly, the Act does not require a wholesale discharge before subjecting an employer
to the restraints of the Act.25
Accordingly, I find that the Respondent discharged Sanchez because of her union
activities and thereby discouraged membership in that organization in violation of
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. I further find that this conduct constituted interference,
restraint, and coercion of employees prohibited by Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
3. With respect to Sanchez' discharge for causing the Union to file an
unfair labor practice charge against the Respondent
The complaint also alleges that the Respondent, in violation of Section 8(a) (4) of
the Act, terminated Sanchez' employment because she was instrumental in the
Union's filing the original unfair labor practice charge in this case. As I have here-
tofore found that this charge was filed on October 3, after the decision to discharge
was made, I find these allegations not supported by the record. Accordingly, I rec-
ommend that these allegations of the complaint be dismissed.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent, set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with its operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and
territories of the United States, including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and
tend to lead, and have led, to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
its free flow.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I
recommend that it cease and desist from engaging in such and related conduct, and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act
Since the Respondent has discriminatorily discharged Sanchez, I recommend that
the Respondent offer her immediate and full reinstatement to her former or a sub-
stantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and
privileges. In addition, I recommend that the Respondent make her whole for any
loss of earnings she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against her,
by payment to her of a sum of money equal to that which she normally would have
earned from the date of her discharge to the date of the Respondent's offer of rein-
statement,26 less her net earnings during the said period. Backpay shall be computed
with interest on a quarterly basis in the manner prescribed by the Board in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, 291-294 and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716.
In view of the fact that the Respondent has maintained contractual relations with
the Union for a number of years, I do not participate the deliberate commission of
other unfair labor practices by the Respondent in the future. Accordingly, I find the
issuance of a broad order herein to be unnecessary.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
25 1T.L R.B v. TV. C. Nabors, d/b/a W. C. Nabors Company, 196 F. 2d 272, 276
(CA. 5), enfg 89 NLRB 538, cert. denied 344 U S 865
20 This, of course, excludes from the computation the period Sanchez would not have
worked during her pregnancy and following the birth of her child.
PUERTO RICO TELEPHONE COMPANY 1093
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Delia
Vazquez de Sanchez as to discourage membership in, or activities on behalf of, the
Union, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
4. By reason of the foregoing conduct, and by warning an employee that the
Respondent was aware of her union leadership and her responsibility for the "bad
atmosphere" on the seventh floor of the building in which she worked, and that she
risked discharge unless she discontinued her union activities; by forbidding her, with-
out qualification, to discuss union matters during and outside working hours; by
threatening to give this employee a "hard time" if anyone learned what had occurred
at the interview during which the above statements were made; by admonishing
another employee that the union "atmosphere" on the seventh floor was prejudicial
to her and that corrective measures would have to be taken if this "atmosphere" and
union discussions persisted, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced employees in the exercise of their statutory rights within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
6. The Respondent did not engage in conduct in violation of Section 8(a)(4) of
the Act, or in conduct other than that found above in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of
the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire
record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, it is ordered that the Respondent, Puerto Rico Telephone Company,
San Juan, Puerto Rico, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Union de Empleados de la Industrial Del Tele-
fono de Puerto Rico, Local 963, Sindicato de Trabajadores Packinghouse, United
Packinghouse Food & Allied Workers, District 9 of Puerto Rico, AFL-CIO, or in any
other labor organization, by discharging employees or discriminating against'them in
any other manner in regard to their hire or'tenuie of employment or any term or
condition of employment, except to the extent that their rights in that regard may be
affected by an agreement requiring'membership in a labor organization as a condi-
ees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
(b) Warning employees that it is aware of their union leadership or activities, and
that they risked discharge or other penalties unless they discontinued such activities;
forbidding employee's to discuss union matters or otherwise engaging in union activi-
ties during nonworking hours; and threatening to give employees a "hard time" if
they disclosed to anyone that the foregoing statements were made by any supervisory
employee.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employ-
ees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section of the Act
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
(a) Offer Delia'Vazquez de Sanchez immediate and full reinstatement to her for-
mer or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other
rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of earnings suffered by, reason
of the discrimination against her, as provided in the section entitled "The Remedy" of
the Trial Examiner's Decision.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due and the right to reinstatement, under the terms of this Recom-
mended Order.
(c) Post at its place of business in San Juan, Puerto Rico, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 27 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
2In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words' "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Coui t of appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
1094 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Director for Region 24, shall , after being duly signed by the Respondent's representa-
tive, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 24, in writing, within 20 days from
the receipt of the Trial Examiner 's Decision , as to what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply herewith.28
It is further ordered that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it
alleges that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(4) of the Act, and engaged in
interference , restraint, and coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act except
as found above.
_s In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director , in writing , within 10 days from
the date of this Order, as to what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Union de Empleados de ]a Industria
del Telefono de Puerto Rico, Local 963, Sindicato de Trabajadores Packinghouse,
United Packinghouse Food & Allied Workers, District 9 of Puerto Rico, AFL-
CIO, or in any other labor organization , by discharging employees or discrim-
inating against them in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment, except to the extent that
their rights in that regard may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment , as. authorized by Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT warn our employees that we are aware of their union leadership
or activities , and that they risk discharge or other penalties unless they discon-
tinue such activities ; or forbid them to discuss union matters or otherwise engage
in union activities during nonworking hours; or threaten to give them a "hard
time" if they disclose to anyone that the foregoing statements were made by any
supervisory employee.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer Delia Vazquez de Sanchez immediate and full reinstatement
to her former or a substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to her
seniority and privileges , and make her whole for any loss of earnings suffered by
reason of the discrimination against her, as provided in the section entitled
"The Remedy" of the Trial Examiner's Decision.
All our employees are free to become , remain , or refrain from becoming or remain-
ing, members of the above -named union , except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition
of employment as authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
PUERTO RICO TELEPHONE COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, P.O. Box
11007, Fernandez Juncos Station , Santurce , Puerto Rico, Telephone No. 724-7171,
if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.