Rio Piedras Mfg. Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 28, 1978

236 N.L.R.B. 1198 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Rio Piedras Manufacturing Corp. and International
Ladies Garment Workers Union, Local 600, AFL-
CIO. Case 24-CA-3858
June 28, 1978
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING XND MEMBERS PENEI.I.O
AND TRUISDALE
Upon a charge filed on June 8, 1977, by Interna-
tional Ladies Garment Workers Union, Local 600,
AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, and duly served
on Rio Piedras Manufacturing Corp., herein called
Respondent, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for
Region 24, issued a complaint on September 19,
1977, and an amended complaint on November 3,
1977, against Respondent, alleging that Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(3), (5), and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
Copies of the charge, complaint, and notice of hear-
ing before an Administrative Law Judge were duly
served on the parties to this proceeding.
On December 8, 1977, counsel for the General
Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for
Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on December 27,
1977, the Board issued an Order transferring the pro-
ceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause
why the General Counsel's Motion for Summary
Judgment should not be granted. Respondent did
not file a response to the Notice To Show Cause, and
the averments of the Motion for Summary Judgment
and of the attached supporting exhibits and certifica-
tions stand uncontroverted.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding. the
Board makes the following:
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
Section 102.20 of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions, Series 8, as amended, provides as follows:
The respondent shall, within 10 days from the
service of the complaint, file an answer thereto.
The respondent shall specifically admit, deny, or
explain each of the facts alleged in the com-
plaint, unless the respondent is without knowl-
edge, in which case the respondent shall so state.
such statement operating as a denial. All allega-
tions in the complaint not specifically denied or
explained in an answer filed, unless the respon-
dent shall state in the answer that he is without
knowledge, shall be deemed to be admitted to be
true and shall be so found by the Board, unless
good cause to the contrary is shown.
The complaint and notice of hearing served on Re-
spondent specifically states that unless an answer to
the complaint is filed by Respondent within 10 days
of service thereof "all of the allegations in the Com-
plaint shall be deemed to be admitted by it to be true
and may be so found by the Board." Further, ac-
cording to Exhibit 5 submitted by counsel for the
General Counsel, the Acting Regional Director on
November 16, 1977, mailed by regular mail a letter
extending the time to file an answer until November
21, 1977. No answer was received from Respondent
by November 21, 1977, or by December 8, 1977, the
date of the Motion for Summary Judgment. No good
cause for failure to file an answer having been
shown, in accordance with the rule set forth above,
the allegations of the complaint are deemed to be
admitted. We, accordingly, find as true all the allega-
tions of the complaint and grant the Motion for
Summary Judgment.
On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is a corporation doing business in the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico with its principal of-
fice and place of business in Hato Rey, Puerto Rico,
where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and dis-
tribution of brassieres, ladies' garments, and related
products. At all times material herein Respondent
has been a member of the Puerto Rican Corset and
Brassiere Association, herein called the Association,
whose constiutents own, maintain, or operate plants
in Puerto Rico for the manufacture of corsets, bras-
sieres, and related products. During the past 12
months, members of the Association, including Re-
spondent, purchased goods and materials valued in
excess of $50,000 directly from sources outside of
Puerto Rico, and during the same period sold, manu-
factured, or finished goods exceeding $50,000 in
value which are shipped directly to purchasers out-
side of Puerto Rico.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Re-
spondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that
236 NLRB No. 144
1198
it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Ladies Garment Workers Union l.o-
cal 600, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Unit
The following employees of Respondent constitute
a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All workers employed by members of the Asso-
ciation in connection with any and all opera-
tions in the manufacture of garments produced
in any shops located in Puerto Rico by said As-
sociation members, including cutters, clickers.
spreaders, operators, shipping employees, pack-
ers, boxers, folders, cleaners, examiners, and
floor girls, and also including maintenance em-
ployees, machinists, mechanics, assistant me-
chanics, drivers, porters, and gardeners. but ex-
cluding the clerical and office force, watchmen.
designers, executives, supervisors (as defined in
the Act), foremen and foreladies, professional
and administrative employees.
The Union has been the collective bargaining rep-
resentative of these employees since at least 1975.
Since that year, and continuing to date, Respondent
has been a member of the Association, and the Asso-
ciation and the Union have been parties to successive
collective-bargaining agreements, the most recent of
which is effective from February 1. 1977. until at
least January 31, 1980, and the Union continues to
be the exclusive representative within the meaning of
Section 9(a) of the Act.
B. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's Refusal
On or about February 17, 1977, the Union sent to
Respondent a written request for:
The names, job classifications, rates of pay when
employed and at the present time, and the dates
of employment of all workers who are now on
the trial period provided in Article IV of the
contract and/or any workers who have complet-
ed the trial period but have not joined the
Union.
Since on or about February 28, 1977, Respondent
has failed and refused to supply to the Union the
RIO PIEDRAS MFG. CORP.
information referred to above.
Furthermore, during the period from June 6. 1977,
to June 20. 1977, Respondent unilaterally removed
all of its equipment from the Hato Rey plant, and on
September 2. 1977, closed the Hato Rey plant entire-
ly. Commencing on or about June 6. 1977. Respon-
dent has refused and does now refuse to bargain with
the Union, by failing to adopt and abide by the terms
of the collective-bargaining agreement described in
section III, A, above, and by failing to bargain with
the Union concerning the effects of the termination
of its operations.
Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since
on or about June 6, 1977, and at all times thereafter,
refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the ap-
propriate unit, and that, by such refusal, Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (< ) of
the Act.
C. The 8(a)(]) Charge
In addition to the conduct described above in sec-
tion II1. B. Respondent, through its agent, Edgardo
Garcia, committed the following acts:
I. On or about early February and late February
1977, Respondent's president, Edgardo Garcia. and
Respondent's coowner, Emilio Garcia, visited the
Union's office to request bargaining on an individual
basis despite the fact that the Association-Union
contract had been consummated without effective
withdrawal by Respondent from membership in the
Association.
2. On or about December 16, 1976, Respondent.
by its agent, Edgardo Garcia. warned and directed
its employees to refrain from becoming or remaining
members of the Union and to refrain from giving any
assistance or support to it, and threatened them with-
discharge and other reprisals if they became or re-
mained members of the Union or gave any assistance
or support to it.
3. On or about December 16, 1976, Respondent.
by its agent, Edgardo Garcia, offered and promised
its employees wage increases, holidays, medical and
other benefits, and improvements in working condi-
tions to induce them from becoming or remaining
members of the Union. to refrain from giving any
assistance or support to it, and to induce them to
abandon their membership in and activity on its be-
half.
4. On or about June 7, and also on or about June
20, 1977, Respondent by its agent. Edgardo Garcia.
told employees that the Hato Rey plant had been
closed because the Union was going to attach Re-
1199
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondent's property to collect debts owed to the
Union under outstanding arbitration awards requir-
ing Respondent to make delinquent payments of
dues checked off and welfare fund payments to the
Union.
Accordingly, we find that, by the conduct de-
scribed above, Respondent did restrain and coerce.
and is restraining and coercing employees in the ex-
ercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
and thereby did engage in, and is engaging in, unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)( 1)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.'
IV. liF EFFE(-I OF TlHE I NI \IR I.ABOR PR.( l1('IS t'ON
('()MINi R(' E
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
Ill, above, occurring in connection with its opera-
tions described in section 1, above, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic.
and commerce among the several States and tend to
lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V lift iL R Mi[)DY
Having found that Respondent engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act, we shall order it
to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affir-
mative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
As a result of Respondent's unlawful failure to
bargain over the effects of its decision to close the
plant, the displaced employees have been denied an
opportunity to bargain through their collective-bar-
gaining representative at a time when Respondent
was still in need of their services and a measure of
balanced bargaining power existed. Effectuation of
the Act's policies therefore require that the emplo)-
ees whose statutory rights have been invaded by rea-
son of Respondent's unlawful unilateral action, and
who have suffered losses in consequence thereof, be
reimbursed for such losses until such time as Respon-
dent remedies its violation by doing what it should
have done in the first place.'
t In the intended comniplaint ii this plocecding. the Gieneral (,oursel al-
leged Ihat Respondent had renilosed its equipment and clhsed the 1iialo Rc,
plant for the piirpose of undernmiiing the niomn and destroing the I nion's
majorit) status of the Haato Res facilit) 'lhere is insulfficient evidence In the
record bclore us upon hich we could determine definitivelk either that lih
plant closure herein was that of a single facibil lTl pall of a larger ipcilatll
If the General C ounsel hidl alleged facts, niot disputed bh an answer, sho-
ing that Respondent was continuing opcrations at other faciilties, an X(a i)l
finding and remed, would have been appropri.lte Accordingls. we hcrehb
dismiss the 8Xa)(3) portions of the complaint. 7n .stile H 4'rktr, I 'nii l X. /),ri
lingl,n Mfx (Co., 380 U.S. 2t3. 265 (1965)
Accordingly, we shall issue a backpay order de-
signed to make whole the employees for losses suf-
fered as a result of the violation. Thus, Respondent
shall pay employees backpay, at the rate of their nor-
mal wages when last in Respondent's employ, from
June 6, 1977, the date when Respondent removed its
equipment from the Hato Rey facility, until the oc-
currence of the earliest of the following conditions:
(1) the date Respondent bargains to agreement with
the Union on those subjects pertaining to the effects
of the closure on unit employees; (2) a bona fide
impasse in bargaining; (3) the failure of the Union to
request bargaining within 5 days of the issuance of
this Decision, or to commence negotiations within 5
days of Respondent's notice of its desire to bargain
with the Union; or (4) the subsequent failure of the
Union to bargain in good faith.
Furthermore, we shall require that Respondent
bargain collectively with the Union, at the Union's
request, concerning the effects of the plant closure on
the Rio Piedras employees.
CON( I USIONS oF LA\w
I. Rio Piedras Manufacturing Corp. is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Ladies Garment Workers Union,
Local 600, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All workers employed by members of the Asso-
ciation in connection with any and all operations in
the manufacture of garments produced in any shops
located in Puerto Rico by said Association members,
including cutters, clickers, spreaders, operators, ship-
ping employees, pickers, boxers, folders, cleaners, ex-
aminers, and floor girls, and also including mainte-
nance employees, machinists, mechanics, assistant
mechanics, drivers, porters, and gardeners, but ex-
cluding the clerical and office force, watchmen, de-
signers, executives, supervisors (as defined in the
Act), foremen and foreladies, professional and ad-
ministrative employees, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. Since at least 1975, the above-named labor or-
ganization has been the collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of all employees in the aforesaid unit for
the purpose of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By the Acts described in section III, B, above
Slummtnti 7'/r1ling ( intlpautl. 195 Nl RB 479 (1972); cf. P B .lutirie Solor
Ir.nimporaln, Inc, 226 NL RB 1325 (1976) (Chairman Fanning. while
adhering to his partial dissent in Sumnnmit lioling (Corpuny. finds it appropri-
ate, under the circumnstances Iif this case, to order Respondent ito bargain
over the effects ,of its plant closure.
1200
RIO PIEDRAS MFG. CORP.
Respondent has refused and does now refuse to bar-
gain collectively with the Union as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of the employees in the appro-
priate unit, and, by such refusal, Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
6. By the acts described in section III, C, above,
Respondent did restrain and coerce, and is restrain-
ing and coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby
did engage in, and is engaging in, unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)( ) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent.
Rio Piedras Manufacturing Corp., Hato Rey, Puerto
Rico, its officers, agents. successors, and assigns.
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Failing and refusing to honor and abide by the
terms and conditions provided for in the collective-
bargaining agreement described in section III, A,
above.
(b) Failing and refusing to bargain with the Union
concerning the effects on the employees in the appro-
priate unit of the decision to close the Hato Rey fa-
cility.
(c) Failing and refusing to supply to the Union the
information requested by it in its letter of February
17, 1977.
(d) Attempting to bargain with the Union individ-
ually, despite the fact that there is in effect an Asso-
ciation-Union contract without effective withdrawal
by Respondent from membership in the Association.
(e) Warning and directing its employees to refrain
from becoming or remaining members of the Union
and to refrain from giving any assistance or support
to the Union.
(f) Threatening employees with discharge and
other reprisals if they become or remain members of
the Union or give any assistance or support to it.
(g) Offering and promising employees wage in-
creases, holidays, medical and other benefits and im-
provements in working conditions to induce them
from becoming and remaining members of the
Union.
(h) Informing employees that the Hato Rey plant
had been closed because the Union was going to at-
tach Respondent's property to collect debts owed to
the Union under outstanding arbitration awards.
(i) In any other manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request bargain in good faith with the
above-named labor organization as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of all employees in the appro-
priate unit set forth above with respect to the effects
on unit employees of the decision to close the Hato
Rey plant, including any disputes with respect to the
effectuation of the remedy set forth herein, and. if an
understanding is reached, embody it in a signed
agreement.
(b) Supply to the Union the information requested
in its letter of February 17. 1977.
(c) In the event Respondent resumes operation of
a facility in Hato Rey. Puerto Rico, or a plant within
the jurisdiction of the above-named Union which is a
substitute for the Hato Rey plant, Respondent shall
bargain, upon request. with the above-named Union
with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment of the employees in the
appropriate unit, and embody any agreement
reached in a signed agreement.
(d) Pay the terminated employees of the Hato Rey
facility their normal wages in the manner and for the
period set forth in the section of this Decision enti-
tled "The Remedy."
(e) Prepare a preferential hiring list, in accordance
with company seniority, of all employees employed
in the appropriate unit as of June 6, 1977.
(f) In the event Respondent resumes operation of
a facility in the Hato Rev area, offer the employees
who were discharged on or about June 6, 1977, be-
cause the Hato Rey plant was closed, reinstatement
to their old jobs or substantially equivalent jobs, as
they become available, in accordance with seniority
and without discrimination as to rates of pay or other
conditions of employment.
(g) Mail to the last known addresses of all employ-
ees on the aforesaid preferential hiring list copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of
said notice. on forms provided by the Regional Di-
rector for Region 24, after being duly signed by an
authorized representative of Respondent, shall be
mailed to said employees within 3 days after they are
received.
(h) Notify the Regional Director for Region 24, in
' In the ecent that this Order is enforced h, a Judgment of a t nited
States C(rlult of Appeals, the %ords in the nrnce reading "Posted h, Order
of the Natlonal I ahot Relations Boatrd" shall read "Posled Pursuant to a
Judgment ef the niltrd Stltcx (ourt if .\ppeaik -nforcing an Order of the
National Iahlor Relatornt Bard "
1201
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps Respondent has taken to comply here-
with.
APPENDIX
NOTICE rO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT attempt to bargain with Interna-
tional Ladies Garment Workers Union, Local
600, AFL-CIO, herein the ILGWU, individ-
ually, despite the fact that there is in effect an
Association-Union contract without our effec-
tive withdrawal from membership in the Associ-
ation.
WE WILL NOT warn or direct our employees to
refrain from becoming or remaining members of
the ILGWU and to refrain from giving an), as-
sistance and support to the ILGWU, or any
other labor organization.
WE. WILL NOT threaten to discharge employees
for engaging in activities in support of the
ILGWI. or any other labor organization.
WE WIL.L NOT offer or promise employees wage
increases, holidays, medical and other benefits,
and improvements in working conditions to in-
duce them to abandon support for the ILGWU,
or any other labor organization.
WE WIi.. Nor inform employees that the Hlato
Rey plant has been closed down because the
ILGWU .was going to attach our property to
collect debts owed to the ILGWU under out-
standing arbitration awards.
WE WIL. Nor refuse to supply the ILGWU
with information which it rightfully requests.
WE WILL NOI refuse to honor and abide by the
terms and conditions of employment provided
for in the collective-bargaining agreement with
the ILGWU, as the exclusive representative in
the bargaining unit described below.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to bargain in good
faith with the International Ladies Garment
Workers Union Local 600, AFL-CIO, with re-
spect to the Company's decision to close the
Hato Rey plant on June 6, 1977, and with re-
spect to the effect of that decision on the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit.
WE Will NOT close any company plant with-
out adequate prior notice to and bargaining with
the union representing the plant employees con-
cerning the effects on the employees involved of
the decision to close the plant.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce any employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Sec-
tion 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL. upon request, bargain in good faith
with the ILGWU, with respect to the effects of
the Company's decision to close the Hato Rey
plant on June 6, 1977. The appropriate unit is:
All workers employed by members of the As-
sociation in connection with any and all oper-
ations in the manufacture of garments pro-
duced in any shops located in Puerto Rico by
said Association members, including cutters,
clickers, spreaders, operators, shipping em-
ployees, packers, boxers, folders, cleaners, ex-
aminers and floor girls, and mechanics, driv-
ers, porters, and gardeners, but excluding the
clerical and office force, watchmen, designers,
executives, supervisors (as defined in the Act),
foremen and foreladies, professional and ad-
ministrative employees.
WE WILL, if the Company opens a plant in the
Hato Rey area, offer the employees who were
discharged on or about June 6, 1977, because
the Hato Rey plant was closed, reinstatement to
their old jobs, or to substantially equivalent jobs,
as they become available, in accordance with se-
niority and without discrimination as to rates of
pay or other conditions of employment and WE
WILL bargain in good faith with the Union con-
cerning the conditions of employment of the
employees in the appropriate unit at the new
plant.
WE WILt. pay the employees who were em-
ployed at the Hato Rey plant their normal wag-
es for a period required by an Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL prepare a preferential hiring list, in
accordance with company seniority, of all em-
ployees at the Hato Rey plant as of June 6, 1977,
and WE WILL offer employees on the preferential
hiring list employment in any jobs for which
they are qualified, if the Company resumes op-
eration of a plant in the Hato Rey area, in ac-
cordance with the Order of the National Labor
Relations Board.
Rio PIEDRAS MANUFACTURING CORP.
1202