Ronrico Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 6, 1943

53 N.L.R.B. 1137 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of RONRIco CORPORATION AND PUERTO Rico DISTILLING
COMPANY and UNION DE TRABAJADORES DE LA INDUSTRIA LICORERA,
LOCAL #4 (CGT) avd UNION DE TRABAJADORES DE LA INDUSTRIA
LICORERA DE ARECIBO (FLT) PARTIES TO CONTRACT
Case No. C-2705 (24-C-12).-Decided December 6, 1943
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon complaint issued pursuant to charges duly filed by Union
de Trabajadores de la Industria Licorera, Local #4, affiliated with
the Confederation General de Trabajadores de Puerto Rico, herein
called the C. G. T., against Ronrico Corporation, herein called the
respondent Ronrico, and Puerto Rico Distilling Company, herein
called' the respondent Puerto Rico Distilling, a hearing was held
before it Trial Examiner in Arecibo, Puerto Rico, from July 7 to 13,
1943, in which the Board, the respondents, and Union de Trabajadores
de la Industria Licorera de Arecibo (FLT); herein called the F. L. T.,
participated by their representatives. Upon the completion of the
taking of testimony at Arecibo, Puerto Rico, counsel for all parties,
except the respondent Puerto Rico Distilling, proceeded to Miami,
Florida, where the hearing was continued on July 17, 1943. Counsel
for the foregoing parties, except the respondent Puerto Rico Distil-
ling, argued orally before the Trial Examiner in Washington, D. C.,
on July 20, 1943. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made on motions and on objections to the admission of
evidence and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.
On August 16, 1943, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, finding that the respondent Ronrico had engaged in viola-
tions of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act. Exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report, and briefs, were thereafter filed by the respondent
Ronrico and the F. L. T. and were considered by the Board. Oral,
argument was held before the Board at Washington, D. C., on Octo-
ber 5, 1943. The F. L. T. was represented by counsel and participated
in the oral argument . Upon our consideration of the entire record,
53 N. L. R. B., No. 210.
1137
1138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS. BOARD
we affirm and adopt the findings of the Trial Examiner, a copy of
whose report is attached hereto, with the additions noted below.
Ronrico Corporation is a Puerto Rico corporation having its prin-
cipal executive offices in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and operating a
plant at Arecibo, Puerto Rico, where it is engaged in the business
of purchasing rum from the respondent Puerto Rico Distilling Com-
pany, and preparing and packing it for sale and distribution. Sub-
stantial amounts of raw materials are used, of which 75 percent come
from sources outside of Puerto Rico and from the United States and
Spain. Ninety-five percent of the finished products are sold and
delivered to points in the continental United States, and 19/100 percent
are sold and delivered to foreign countries.
An examination of the record convinces us that the respondent
Ronrico engaged in unfair labor practices enumerated in the findings
of the Trial Examiner. The first indication of employee interest in
self-organization, disclosed by the record, occurred in the spring of
1941, when the C. G. T. began its organizational activities among the
employees of the respondent Ronrico and eventually established Local
No. 4 for the Ronrico group. On August 30, 1941, some of the re-
spondent Ronrico's employees formed another organization and ap-
plied for affiliation with the F. L. T., which issued a charter to the
group on September 9, 1941. The record establishes that coincident
with, if not actually antecedent to, the initial appearance of the
F. L. T., the respondent Ronrico launched a discriminatory campaign
to oust the C. G. T. from its plant and to entrench the F. L. T. in an
established position by appointing Assistant Foreman Galarza to lead
the F. L. T. organization.
The Trial Examiner found, and we concur, that thereafter the re-
spondent Ronrico, through Assistant Foreman Galarza, openly assisted
the F. L. T. by coercing employees to join the F. L: T. and by solicit-
ing signatures, in the plant and during working hours, to the petition
upon which the respondent Ronrico based its recognition of the
F. L. T. as the exclusive bargaining representative in the closed-shop
contract executed on September 1, 1942. Moreover, the Trial Ex-
aminer found that Plant Superintendent Olivar expressed his hostil-
ity to the C. G. T. in conversations with employees Natal and Qui-
nones and attempted, although unsuccessfully, to obtain Foreman
Colon's assistance in discouraging membership in the F. L. T. We
agree with the Trial Examiner's resolutions of conflicting testimony
in connection with this aspect of the case, and confirm his findings
thereon.
We conclude,,as did the Trial Examiner, that the assistance afforded
by the respondent Ronrico to the organizational efforts of the F. L. T.
deprived the employees of their right freely to choose their bargaining
RONRICO CORPORATION 1139
agent, and that the closed-shop contract entered into on September 1,
1942, between the respondent Ronrico and the F. L. T. is accordingly
invalid. We find that, by the foregoing conduct and by the remarks.
of Galarza and Olivar, the respondent Ronrico interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On September 3, 1942, the respondent Ronrico posted a notice in
the plant, quoting the closed-shop provision of its contract with the
F. L. T. and notifying its employees that by September 15, 1942, they
"must become affiliated to the above-mentioned union and . . . will
be required to present the proper credentials." On September 11,
'1942, the respondent Ronrico closed the plant at which its operations
had theretofore been conducted, and, laid off all employees, except
those retained to assist in moving materials to its new plant, and ex-
cept Foreman Colon, employee Antonio Natal, head of the C. G. T.,
employee Felipe Natal, and an office employee not involved in this
proceeding. The latter 4 employees were discharged and given let-
ters commending their services. On the morning of October 16, 1942,
when operations resumed at the new plant, about 100 men appeared
outside the plant, including the 26 employees 1 named in the complaint
as having been refused employment on that day. From the crowd,
Olivar selected 46 employees, all of whom were members of the
F. L. T. and had worked in the old plant. As did the Trial Exam-
iner, we find that the respondent Ronrico hired only F. L. T. mem-
bers in order to insure the elimination of the C. G. T.-fr in the plant,
and that the above-mentioned 26 employees were denied reemploy-
ment on October 16, 1942, in accordance with the notice posted on
September 3, 1942, and with the announced intent of Hulsman, secre-
tary and treasurer of the respondent Ronrico, to make employment
available only to members of the F. L. T. upon resumption of opera-
tions. The closed-shop contract between the respondent Ronrico and
the F. L. T. being invalid, the respondent Ronrico was not privi-
leged to refuse reemplyoment to any employees on October 16, 1942,
for the reason that they were not members of the F. L. T. or that they
were C. G. T. members. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that
the respondent Ronrico, by its failure to offer employment to the
above-named 26 employees on October 16, 1942, discriminated against
them ,because they were not members of the F. L. T., and because they
were C. 'G. T. " members, thereby encouraging membership in the
1 Specifically : Elias Estevas, Jose Perez , Felix Santiago , Gonzalo Allende , Natalio Car-
dona , Jose Martinez , Enrique Rivera, Teodoro Delgado , Francisco Diaz, Amado Martinez
Badia, Felipe Natal, Antonio Natal , Cruz Cordero , Antonio Mena , Juan Rodriguez , Adolfo
Navarro , Luiz Rodrigues , Luis Santana , Guillermo Beauchamp , Arturo Rivera, Luis de la
Rosa, GuillAmo Quinones , Elpidio Torres , Teodoro Rolon , Ricarte Vega , and Rosendo
Marquez
1140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
former organization and discouraging membership in the C. G. T.,
and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
The issues as framed by the exceptions, briefs, and oral argument,
reduce themselves to three principal questions: (1) Whether the Act
is applicable to Puerto Rico; (2) Whether the instant proceeding is
within the bar of the amendment to the Board's 1944 Appropriation
Act; and (3) Whether Galarza was a supervisory employee whose
acts were attributable to the respondent Ronrico.
The respondent Ronrico and the respondent Puerto Rico Distilling
contend that the Act is not applicable to Puerto Rico and that accord-
ingly the instant proceeding is not within the Board's jurisdiction.
The C. G. T. and the F. L. T. insist that the Board's jurisdiction
extends to Puerto Rico. The jurisdiction of the Board is based upon
Section 10 (a) of the Act, which provides that the Board is "em-
powered . . . to prevent any persons from engaging in any unfair
labor practice . . . affecting commerce." Commerce is defined by
Section 2 (6) of the Act as follows:
(6) The term "commerce" means trade, traffic, commerce, trans-
portation, or communication among the several States, or between
the District of Columbia or any Territory of the United States,
and any State or other Territory, or between any foreign country
and any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, or within
the District of Columbia or any Territory, or between points in the
same State but through any other State or any Territory or the
District of Columbia or any foreign country.
It appears clear that Puerto Rico is not a "State" 2 or a "foreign
country," 3 as these terms are used in Section 2 (6). Since Puerto Rico
is under the sole sovereignty of the United States, by virtue of the
treaty of cession from Spain," but has not been admitted to Statehood,
the status of Puerto Rico falls within the classification of dependencies
and possessions of the United States.' The issue to be determined,
therefore, is whether Puerto Rico is one of the dependencies and pos-
sessions of the United States which Congress intended to be embraced
2 The word "State" has been construed in some instances to mean merely any "organized
political society" : Ceofrey v. Riggs, 133 U. S. 258 ; Talbott v. Silver Bow County, 139
U. S 438. The Talbott case was followed in Domenech v. National,City Bank of N. Y,
294 U S 199, a case involving Puerto Rico. However, such a construction of Section 2
(6) of the Act seems untenable because its references to "State," "Territory," and the
"District of Columbia" indicate that "State" was not used in the broad abstract sense.
3 See DeLima v Bidwell, 182 U. S. 1.
4 Treaty of Paris, 1898
i For the use of the terms "possession" and "dependency," which seem to be synonymous,
see Domenech v. National City Bank of N. Y, note 1, supra; Cincinnati Soap *0. v. U. S.,
301 U. S 808; Posadas V. National City Bank, 296 U S 497. As to sovereignty, see Graf.
ton V. U. 8 206 U. S. 333.
RONRICO CORPORATION 1141
within the term "Territories" as used in Section 2 (6) of the Act.
The respondents contend that it is not.
In a context such as that of Section 2 (6) of the Act, the courts have
invariably interpreted the term "Territory" in a conceptual sense, as
designating only those possessions which have been endowed by
Congress with certain characteristics. If the possession is both "in-
corporated" and "organized," there is no judicial doubt that it is a
Territory in the conceptual sense.6 The term "incorporated " as used
by the courts refers to whether a territory has been declared by statute
or treaty to be a part of the United States, with the resultant exten-
sion to it of all the constitutional guarantees.' The term "organized"
has reference to whether or not Congress has prescribed a system of
local self-government for the territory."
A second classification of possessions, including those which are
organized but not incorporated, may also be deemed Territories, the
Congressional intent underlying the particular statutes being the
determinative factor. All. judicial decisions are in agreement that
Puerto Rico is within the class of possessions, which are unincorpor-
ated ° but organized 10
In all cases before the Supreme Court on the issue of whether
statutes applying to "Territories" are operative in Puerto Rico, it has
been held that the term covers Puerto Rico 11 In each case, the Court
found that the intent or purpose of the legislation required that it be
interpreted to include more than the incorporated Territories. In a
recent case on this point, Puerto Rico v. The Shell Company,12 the
Supreme Court held that the Sherman Act applied to Puerto Rico for
the reason that the scope of the phrase "in any Territory of the United
States, or . . . between any such Territory and another" in Section 3
of that act must be determined by the "character and aim" of the act
and the circumstances under which it was enacted. The Court ac-
cordingly decided that the "word `Territory' was used in the most com-
prehensive sense, as embracing all organized territories, whether incor-
porated into the United States or not," since Congress intended to
I In rare instances , the term "Territory of the United States ' has been given a physical
interpretation as denoting all the area belonging to the United States and under its sovei-
eignty See O'Donoghue v U. S, 289 U S 516, and Cunard Steamship Co. v Mellon 262
U S 100.
7 See Downes v Bidwell , 182 U S . 244, and Derr v U S., 195 U S. 138.
'See Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U. S 130; Maynard v. Hill, 125 U S 190; Puerto Rico v
Rosaly, 227 U. S. 270.
° See Balzac v. People of Puerto Rico , 258 U. S. 298 ; Lastra v New Yoik and Puerto
Rico S. S. Co , 2 F. (2d ) 812 (C C. A. 1) ; Downes v . Bidwell, note 7, supra.
10 See Kopel v. Bingham , 211 U. S 468; American Railroad of Puerto Rico V Didricksen,
227 U. S 145; Puerto Rico v The Shell Company, 302 U S 253, Cases v. United States,
131 F . (2d) 916 (C C A 1)
11 See Kopel v. Bingham ; American Railroad of Puei to Rico v. Didricksen; Puerto Rico
V. The Shell Company, note 10, supra
12 302 U. S. 253.
i
1142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
exercise all its power in the enactment of the Sherman Act and to
include within its scope all territories to which its powers might
extend.
The only other section of the National Labor Relations Act which
refers to Territories, and which may therefore be considered relevant
to the problem of the intent of Congress in the use of the term "Terri-
tories" in Section 2 (6), is Section 11. The latter section defines the
subpena power of the Board, and provides that the United States Court
of any "Territory or possession" may compel obedience to Board sub-
penas. However, the use of the latter phrase is neither a positive nor
a negative indication as to the inclusion of Puerto Rico within the
term "Territory." A possession is any dependency, that is, any unit
under the sole sovereignty of the United States, as distinguished from
a State of the Union in which there is a dual sovereignty.13 If "Terri-
tory" is here construed as in Section 2 (6), to include organized but
unincorporated, as well as organized and incorporated territories, the
term "possession" nevertheless has content, embracing the depend-
encies which are neither organized nor incorporated. It would appear
that Congress employed the whole phrase "Territory or possession"
to provide for the issuance of subpenas in those possessions which
are not comprised in the term "Territory," because they are neither
"incorporated" nor "organized."
The Congressional reports and debates on the Act mention neither
the dependencies nor the Congressional power over territories.'' How-
ever, their general tenor,'-' as well as the Act"' itself, clearly indicate
the purpose of Congress to give full expression to its commerce power.
Indeed, in Section 1 of the Act, Congress explicitly disclosed the pur-
pose and broad objectives underlying the Act." Congress found that
"the denial by employers of the right of employees to organize and
the refusal by employers to accept the procedure of collective bargain-
ing lead to strikes and other forms of industrial strife and unrest,
which have the intent or the necessary effect of burdening or obstruct-
ing commerce by (a) impairing the efficiency, safety, or operation of
the instrumentalities of commerce; (b) occurring in the current of
commerce; (c) materially affecting,.restraining, or controlling the flow
of raw materials or manufactured or processed goods from or into
13 See Grafton v U. S., note 5, supra; Damenech v. National City Bank of N. Y, note 2,
supra; Posadas v. National City Bank, note 5, supra.
14 The clauses relating to Territories in Section 2 (6) and Section 11 were in the
original bills and were not changed throughout the hearings
15 House Report No . 1147, June 10, 1935, at p 10; Senate Report No . 573, May 1 ( calendar
day May 2 ) 1935, at pp. 7, 19; Congressional Record for June 19 , 1935, pp. 9698-9
( statement of Marcantonio , member of House Labor Committee ) and p 9710 ( statement
of Senator Mead).
16 See N . L. R B. v . Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp , 301 U S 1.
17 See Consolidated Edison Co. v. N L. R. B, 305 U S . 197; N L R B. V. Fainblatt, 306
U. S. 601; Phelps Dodge Corp . v. N. L R. B., 313 U S. 177; N L R. B. V. Alloy Cast Steel
Co, 117 F (2d) 302 (C. C. A. 6).
RONRICO CORPORATION 1143
the channels of commerce, or the prices of such materials or goods in
commerce; or (d) causing diminution of employment and wages in
such volume as substantially to impair or disrupt the market for goods
flowing from or into the channels of commerce." Congress further
found that "experience has proved that protection by law of the right
of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards com-
merce from injury, impairment, or interruption, and promotes- the
flow of commerce by removing certain recognized sources of industrial
strife and unrest and by restoring quality of bargaining power be-
tween employers and employees." Congress therefore declared it to
be "the policy of the United States to eliminate the causes of certain
substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce and to mitigate
and eliminate these obstructions when they have occurred by encour-
aging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by
protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-
organization, and designation of representatives of their own choos-
ing . . . ". From similar evidence in regard to the Sherman Act, the
Supreme Court concluded that Congress therein intended to exert
all its power-that over territories, as well as over commerce-and
used the term "Territory" in its most comprehensive sense 18 More-
over, the Act was intended to cover the same sphere as the Sherman
and Clayton Acts 19 and to replace the National Industrial Recovery
Act '20 which applied in terms to Territories and insular possessions.21
A construction of the Act which would exclude Puerto Rico would
proctuce an irrational situation which should not be assumed as in-
tended by Congress. Under such a construction, commerce between
Puerto Rico and the Port of New York would not fall within the
scope of the Act, although its interruption might well disrupt com-
merce between New York and another State as effectively as an in-
terruption of commerce between any foreign country and New York.
Commerce between Alaska and Puerto Rico would not come under
the Act, although over these two areas the Federal Government has
plenary legislative power. The Congressional intent to avoid such
a construction of the Act seems clear in view of the fact that one of
the principal justifications for the Act was the inability of the States
'y Puerto Rico v The Shell Co., 302 U S. 253; see Atlantic Cleaners and Dyers v. U. S.,
286 U. S. 427. See also Cases v United States, 131 F. (2d) 916 (C C. A. 1), applying to
Puerto Rico, and upholding the constitutionality of, the Federal Firearms Act, which
made unlawful the transportation of firearms and ammunitions, under certain conditions,
in interstate or foreign commerce, and which defined such commerce to include commerce
"within any Territory or possession or the District of Columbia." The Court stated,
"It is clear that in enacting the Federal Firearms Act Congress was exercising the power
conferred upon it by, the commerce clause, but it is equally clear that Congress meant
to deal comprehensively with the subject and to exert all the power which it had in
respect thereto."
19 House Report No 1147, note 42, at p. 9.
20 48 Stat. 198, supplemented by Public Resolution 44, 48 Stat 1183,
2i See note 19, supra, and Senate Report No. 573, note 42, at p. 4.
1144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to control economic forces which "disregard . . . State lines." 22
Both Puerto Rico and New York suffer from the same limitations as
any State in regard to commerce traversing its boundaries. More-
over, commerce between the Territories and outside points has fre-
quently been assimilated to and regarded as "interstate." 23 In view
of the pronouncements of Congress which indicate its intent to as-
sert -in the Act its power over all interstate commerce, it would fol-
low that Congress intended to include commerce between Puerto
Rico and outside points within the purview of the Act. We there-
fore conclude and find that Puerto Rico is included within the term
"Territory" in Section 2 (6) of the Act and that the Board' s juris-
diction accordingly embraces unfair labor practices- affecting com-
merce between Puerto Rico and points outside Puerto Rico.24
The F. L. T. and the respondent Ronrico contend, however, that
the instant case is within' the bar of the amendment to the Board's
1944 Appropriations Act 25 on the ground that the "complaint" was
not issued within 3 months of the execution of the contract with the
F. L. T. This contention is, however, precluded by the ruling of
the Comptroller General of the United States issued on July 29,
1943, that the amendment uses "complaint" in the sense of "charge."
They also contend that, even assuming this interpretation to be cor-
rect, the proceeding is barred by the amendment for the further rea-
son that "the principal matter which the Trial Examiner finds against
the respondent, namely, the discriminatory refusal to reinstate em-
ployees after a shut-down in the plant, did not occur until more than
2 weeks after this charge of September 26 was filed, and it is ele-
mental (sic) that a charge cannot include matters which, as of the
time of the filing of the charge, have not yet occurred." The orig-
inal charge, docket number 24-C-12, was filed by the C. G. T. with
the Regional Director of the Twenty-Fourth Region on September
26, 1942, alleging that the respondent Ronrico had engaged in viola-
tions of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) of the Act. Since this charge,
filed 24 days after the execution of the contract between the F. L. T.
22 Senate Report No. 573, note 42, at p 3
22 See N L R B. v Jones d Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1 , Puei to Rico Tax Appeals,
16 F (2d) 545 (C C A. 1), rev'd on other grounds, 275 U S 36, New Mexico v. Denver
and Rio Grande Railroad Co , 203 U. S 38.
24 For the purpose of this Decision , we find it unnecessary to determine whether Congress
intended to include , within the scope of the Act, commerce within Puerto Rico as well as
that between Puerto Rico and outside points
25 This amendment provides that "No part of the funds appropriated in this title shall
be used in any way in connection with a complaint case arising over an agreement
between management and labor which has been in existence for 3 months or longer
without complaint being filed Provided, That, hereafter, notice of such agreement shall
have been posted in the plant affected for said period of 3 months, said notice containing
information as to the location at an accessible place of such agreement where said agree-
ment shall be open for inspection by any interested persons " Labor-Federal Security
Appropriation Act, 1944 (Act of July 12, 1943, Public Law No. 135, 78th Congress,
1st Session). '
RONRICO CORPORATION 1145
and the respondent Ronrico, specifically alleged violation of Section
8 (2) of the Act, in that the respondent Ronrico "interfered with and
gave support to the formation of" the F. L. T., it is clear that it was
sufficient to place in issue the legitimacy of the F. L. T. and conse-
quently effectively to raise the issue of the validity of the contract
between the F. L. T. and the respondent Ronrico, under the provisions
of the amendment to the Board's 1944 Appropriations Act. On June
15, 1943, the C. G. T. filed a first amended charge, docket number
24,C-12, alleging that both the respondent Ronrico and, the re-
spondent Puerto. Rico Distilling had engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices and more specifically detailing the various illegal acts of as-
sistance afforded the F. L. T. Both the original and first amended
charge alleged that certain named employees were discriminatorily
discharged on September 11, 1942. The record establishes that
the respondent Ronrico ceased operations at its old plant on
September 11, 1942, and resumed operations at its new plant on Oc-
tober 16, 1942. At the hearing the amended charge and complaint
were amended to allege that the respondents discharged and re-
fused to reinstate the above employees on October 16, 1942. The
F. L. T. and the respondent Ronrico contend that the discharge of
employees on October 16, 1942, is the gist of the action, and that the
proceeding must therefore be considered as based upon the amended
charge filed on June 15, 1943, after the date of the discharges, and
could not be based on the original charge filed on September 26, 1942,
since the latter date was prior to the'date of the discharges; more
than 3 months having elapsed between the discharges on October 16,
1942, and the filing of the June 15, 1943, amended charge, they argue
that the proceeding is barred by the amendment. These conten-
tions are apparently predicated on the false premise that, if a dis-
charge is the gist of an action, the amendment requires the filing of
the charge within 3 months of the date of the discharge. The cor-
rect interpretation of the amendment is that a charge must be filed,
placing in issue the validity of any agreement out of which the case
arises, within 3 months of the date of the agreement. The amend-
ment is in no wise concerned with the relation of the date of the
charge to other events. We therefore find no merit to the conten-
tion that this proceeding is barred by the amendment;
The respondent Ronrico and the F. L. T. also contend that Galarza
was not a supervisory employee and that the respondent Ronrico
therefore cannot be held accountable for any unfair labor practices
committed by him. The Trial Examiner found that Galarza was a
supervisory employee. Since the record contains persuasive evidence
to the effect that Galarza was given Olivar's open approval in organiz-
ing the F. L. T. and, in fact, served as an agent of management in its
1146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discriminatory campaign against the C. G. T. and in favor of the
F. L. T., the responsibility of the respondent Ronrico is the same
whether or not Galarza was a supervisory employee. We find, how-
ever, that Galarza was both an agent and a supervisory employee of
the respondent Ronrico and that his activities and conduct are attrib-
utable to the respondent Ronrico. We further find that, by the con-
duct, activities, and statements of Galarza, the respondent Ronrico
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act.
Counsel for the F. ,L. T. has argued that wages and conditions of
employment in Puerto Rico are, depressed; that the F. L. T.'s
contract with the respondent Ronrico is an initial step toward a gen-
eral improvement in such conditions and is one of the first closed-
shop contracts in the island; that, if this contract is set aside, it will
mean that employees in Puerto Rico will hesitate to enter into closed-
shop contracts in the future; and that progress in improvement of
working conditions in the island will accordingly receive a severe set-
back. But Section 1 of the Act recognizes that depressed wage rates
and purchasing power exist where employees lack full freedom of
association, 'and the Act therefore protects "the exercise by workers
of full freedom of association, self-organization, and the designation
of representatives of their own choosing," without interference from
the employer. Where, as here, the employer has unlawfully rendered
assistance to the F. L. T. while discriminating against the C. G. T.,
the employees have been denied the full freedom of association with-
out interference from the employer which is guaranteed by the Act,
and we have no choice under the clear terms of Section 8 (3) of the
Act but to recognize the invalidity of a closed-shop contract made with
such an organization. There is nothing in our Decision or Order,
however, which requires the respondent to vary the wage, hour, and
other substantive features of its relations with its employees which it
has established in the performance of its contract with the F. L. T.
In conclusion, it should be noted that Section 8 (3) of the Act ex-
pressly recognizes the validity of a closed-shop contract made with
a labor organization which represents a majority of the employees
in an appropriate unit and which has not been unlawfully assisted by
unfair labor practices. So long as these conditions are satisfied there
is no impediment to the use of closed-shop contracts whenever agreed
upon by the contracting parties.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Ronrico Corporation,
RONRICO CORPORATION 1147
Arecibo, Puerto Rico, and its officers, agents, succesors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Union de Trabajadores de la
Industria Licorera, Local $k4 (CGT), or in any other labor organi-
zation of its employees, or encouraging membership in Union de Tra-
baj adores de la Industria Licorera de Arecibo (FLT), or in any other
labor organization of its employees, by discharging, laying off, or
refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in any other manner
discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment,
or any term or condition of their employment;
(b) Recognizing Union de Trabajadores de la Industria Licorera
de Arecibo (FLT) as the representative of any of its employees for
the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances,
labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or condi-
tions of work, unless and until that organization shall have been
certified by the Board as the representative of the employees ;
(c) Giving effect to its contract, dated September 1, 1942, with
Union de Trabajadores de la Industria Licorera de' Arecibo (FLT),
or to any extension, renewal, modification, or supplement thereof, or
to airy superseding contract with that organization, which may now
be in force, unless and until that organization shall have been cer-
tified by the Board as the representative of the employees, but with-
out prejudice to the assertion by the employees of any legal rights
they may have acquired under the contract as extended, renewed,
modified, supplemented or superseded;
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self=organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Union de Traba-
jadores de la Industria Licorera de Arecibo (FLT) as the represent-
ative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the
respondent concerning grievances; labor disputes, wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work, unless and until
that organization shall have been certified by the Board as the repre-
sentative of its employees;
(b) Offer to Elias Estevas, Jose Perez, Felix Santiago, Gonzalo
Allende, Natalio Cardona, Jose Martinez, Enrique Rivera, Teodoro
Delgado, Francisco Diaz, Amado Martinez Badia, Felipe Natal, An-
tonio Natal, Cruz Cordero, Antonio Mena, -Juan Rodriguez, Adolfo
1148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Navarro, Luis Rodriguez, Luis Santana, Guillermo Beauchamp,
Arfuro Rivera, Luis de la Rosa, Guillermo Quinones, Elpidio Torres,
Teodoro Rolon, Ricarte Vega, and Rosendo Marquez, immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions in the manner set forth in Section V, The Remedy, of the Inter-
mediate Report, and to Tomas Colon immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former or most substantially equivalent position, presently
available in its operations, without prejudice to their seniority and
other rights and privileges;
(c) Make whole the employees named in the preceding paragraph
for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of the respondent's
discrimination against them by payment to each of them of a sum of
money equal to the amount which he normally would have earned as
wages from the date of the respondent's discrimination against him to
the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings
during such period ;
(d) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant,
and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from
the date of posting, notices to its employees stating: (1) that the
respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered
to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this
Order; (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set
forth in paragraphs 2 (a), (b), and (c) of this Order; and (3) that
the respondent's employees are free to become and remain members
of Union de Trabajadores de la Industria Licorera, Local #4 (CGT),
that its employees are not required to join Union de Trabajadores de
la Industria Licorera de Arecibo (FLT), and that it will not dis-
criminate against any employee because of membership in or activity
on behalf of Union de Trabajadores de la Industria Licorera, Local
#4 (CGT), or because of failure to join Union de Trabajadores de
la Industria Licorera de Arecibo (FLT) ;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-Fourth Region,
San Juan, Puerto Rico, in writing, within fifteen (15) days from
the date of this Order, what steps the respondent has taken to comply
herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed as to the respondent Puerto Rico Distilling Company and
also insofar as it alleges that the respondents have discriminated in
regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Rafael Sanchez.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Vincent M Rotolo, for the Board.
Fiddler, McConnell & Gonzales, of San Juan, P. R, by Mr. Herbert S. McCon-
nell, for the respondent Ronrico.
Mr. Enrique Cordova Diaz, of San Juan, P. R., for the respondent Puerto Rico
Distilling.
RONRICO CORPORATION 1149
Messrs. I. B. Padway, of Washington, D. C., Antonio Reyes Delgado, of Arecibo,
P. R., and Prudeacio Rivera Martinez, of San Juan, P. It., for the F. L. T.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed on September 26, 1942, and a first amended charge
duly filed on June 15, 1943, by Union de Trabajadores de la Industria Licorera,
Local #4, affiliated with the Confederacion General de Trabajadores de Puerto
Rico, herein called the C. G. T., the National Labor Relations Board, herein called
the Board, by the Regional Director for the Twenty-fourth Region (San Juan,
Puerto Rico), issued its complaint dated June 25, 1943, against the Ronrico Cor-
poration, herein called the respondent Ronrico, and the Puerto Rico Distilling
Company, herein called the respondent Puerto Rico Distilling, alleging that the
respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
With respect to the unfair- labor practices the complaint, amended as herein-
after described, alleged in substance : (1) that the respondents Ronrico and Puerto
Rico Distilling are both employers of the employees, involved in these proceedings,
within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act; (2) that both respondents,
from about July 1, 1941, expressed disapproval of the C. G. T. and restrained
the employees working in the respondent Ronrico's plant from joining and
remaining members of the C G. T., while assisting the Union de Trabajadores
de la Industria Licorera de Arecibo (F. L. T.), herein called the F. L. T., in the
solicitation of members among the same employees; (3) that in September,
1942, the respondent, Ronrico entered into a union shop agreement with the
F. L. T. the terms of which required membership in the said organization as
a condition of employment; (4) that before the execution of the said agree-
ment both respondents assisted the F. L T. in acquiring members and that
therefore the contract is not within the proviso of Section 8 (3) of the Act
and that at the time of the execution of the contract the F. L T. did not repre-
sent a majority of the employees in an appropriate unit as required by Section
9 (a) of the Act; (5) that on or about October 16, 1942, the respondents dis-
charged and refused to reinstate the following named employees, because
of their membership in the C. G. T. and because they did not join the F. L. T.:
Gonzalo Allende Antonio Mena Luis Santana
Amado Badia Antonio Natal Felix Santiago
Guillermo Beauchamp Felipe Natal Elpidio Torres
Natalio Cardona Jose Perez Ricarte Vega
Cruz Cordero Guillermo Quinones Luis Rodriguez
Francisco Diaz Enrique Rivera Teodoro Delgado
Elias Esteves Arturo Rivera Teodoro Rolon
Rosendo Marquez Juan Rodriguez Adolfo Navarro
Jose Martinez Luis de la Rosa
(6) that on or about August 26, 1942, the respondents discharged Rafael
Sanchez because of his C. G. T. membership and because he refused to join
the F. L. T.; (7) that on or about September 11, 1942,1 the respondents discharged
Tomas Colon because he refused to engage in conduct intended to encourage
membership in the F. L. T and to discourage membership in the C. G. T.; and
that by the above described conduct the respondents have interfered with,
and are interfering with, the exercise of rights guaranteed to employees in See-
I Although the complaint was amended early in the proceeding to change the date of
Colon's discharge to October 16, it was later reamended to the original date. (489)
559015-44-vol. 53-74
1150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion 7 of the Act. The complaint and accompanying notice of hearing were duly
served upon the respondents, the C. G. T. and the F. L. T
The respondent Puerto Rico Distilling, by its answer verified by its counsel
on July 6, 1943, denied that it exercised any control over the labor policies or
personnel management of the respondent Ronrico, denied that it was an em-
ployer of the employees referred to in the complaint, within the meaning of
Section 2 (2) of the Act, and denied that it had engaged in any of the unfair
labor'practices alleged in the complaint. As a separate defense, the answer
alleged that the Act is not applicable to Puerto Rico.
The respondent Ronrico, by its answer verified on July 6, 1943, denied that
the respondent Puerto Rico Distilling exercised any control over its employees and
denied that it had engaged in any of the unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint.
On June 29, 1943, counsel for the respondent Ronrico filed with the Regional,
Director a Motion for Bill of-Particulars, and an Alternative Motion for Leave
to take Depositions or to Examine Witnesses in Miami, Florida. On July 2, 1943,
the Regional Director issued his order denying the Motion for Bill of Particulars,
and referring the alternative motion to the Trial Examiner for his determination
at the hearing.
Pursant to notice, a hearing was held at Arecibo, Puerto Rico, from July 7
to 13, before the undersigned, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief
Trial Examiner The Board, the respondents, and the F. L. T. were represented
by counsel. All parties participated in the hearing at Arecibo, and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing upon the issues. At the opening of the hearing
counsel for the respondent Ronrico renewed his motion for a bill of particulars;
said motion was granted in part and denied in part. Separate motions by the
respondents and by the F. L. T. to dismiss the complaint were denied. A joint
motion by all parties was granted to continue the hearing at Miami, Florida,
following the taking of all material evidence available in Puerto Rico, for the
purpose of receiving the testimony of certain witnesses to be called by the
respondent Ronrico. During the hearing the Trial Examiner granted certain
motions made, without objection, by counsel for the Board to amend the coin-
plaint, and to'strike from it certain allegations.'
Upon the completion of the taking of testimony at Arecibo, counsel for all
parties, except the respondent Puerto Rico Distilling' proceeded to Miami,
Florida, where the hearing was continued on July 17. Counsel for all parties
except the respondent Puerto Rico Distilling argued orally before the Trial
Examiner in Washington on July 20, 1943 The oral arguments appear in the
official transcript of the hearing. All parties waived the privilege of filing
briefs with the Trial Examiner. At the close of the hearing the Trial Examiner
granted, without objection by other parties, a motion by counsel for the Board
to conform the pleadings to the proof in minor respects. Also at the close of.
the bearing counsel for the F. L. T. and for the respondent Ronrico,moved to
dismiss the complaint upon the grounds that the Board was without authority
to proceed further with the case due to the provisions of the appropriation bill
2 Thus, the complaint was amended to change the date of the group discharges, noted
above, from September 11 to October 16, 1942, and separate allegations as to the dis-
charges of employees Luis Santiago and Julio Bithorn were stricken from the complaint
3 Counsel for the respondent Puerto Rico Distilling waived the privilege of proceeding to
Miami, and stated his desire to submit the case upon evidence already adduced at Puerto
Rico or which would be adduced by counsel for the respondent Ronrico at Miami, without
oral argument.
RONRICO CORPORATION 1151
known as Public No. 135 of the 78th Congress, 1st session, approved by the
President of the United States on July 12, 1943.' Said motions were denied
At the close of the hearing counsel for the respondent Ronrico renewed a
motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the Act was not applicable
to Puerto Rico. Said motion was denied. Counsel for the F. L. T. moved that
the complaint be dismissed as to all matters affecting the F. L. T. Ruling was
reserved. The motion is hereby denied.
During the hearing, and at the close of his case, counsel for the respondent
Puerto Rico Distilling moved that the complaint be dismissed as to that respond-
ent. Ruling was reserved. Recommendation with respect to this motion appears
hereinafter.
Upon the record thus made, and from his observation of the witnesses, the
Trial Examiner makes, in addition to the above, the following:
FINDINGS Or FACT
I. THE BUSINESS AND RELATIONSHIP OF THE RESPONDENTS
A. The business of the respondent Puerto Rico Distilling
The Puerto Rico Distilling Company is a Puerto Rico corporation, having its
principal executive offices and place of business at Arecibo, Puerto Rico. It is
engaged in the manufacture and distillation of alcohol and rum, with fusel oil
as a by-product, and in the processing of rum and other toilet preparations.
Raw materials used by the respondent Puerto Rico Distilling include molasses,
fuel oil, ammonium sulphate, sulphuric acid, bay oil, brucine sulphate, buthyl
alcohol, methanol and ethyl acetate.
During the six-months' period immediately preceding the hearing, the respond-
ent Puerto Rico Distilling used raw materials amounting in value to $117,806.38,
9 percent of which was shipped to its plant in Arecibo from the United States.
Within the same period, the respondent Puerto Rico Distilling sold, and de-
livered for sale and distribution, products listed and valued as follows:
287,136 gallons of alcohol, valued at $186,034.00
364,587 gallons of rum, valued at $107,593.76
447,611 bottles of bay rum, valued at $72,419.19
17,500 gallons of toilet preparations, valued at $24,500.00
250 gallons of fusel oil, valued at $187.50
Thirteen and one-half percent of the above products were sold and delivered to
points outside of Puerto Rico.
The respondent Puerto Rico Distilling concedes that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 of the Act, but denies that the Act is applicable
to Puerto Rico.
B. The business of the respondent Ronrico
The Ronrico Corporation is a Puerto Rico corporation having its principal
executive offices in San Juan, Puerto Rico. It owns and operates a plant and
The provision states, in part, that "No part of the funds appropriated in this title
shall be used in any way in connection with a complaint case arising over an agreement
between management and labor which has been in existence 3 months or longer without
complaint being filed."
I The statement of facts In this section is based upon a stipulation entered into by coun-
sel for the Board and for the respondent Puerto Rico Distilling
6 The statement of facts in this section is based mainly upon a stipulation entered Into
by counsel for the Board and for the respondent Ronrico.
1152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
factory at Arecibo, Puerto Rico, where it is engaged in the business of purchasing
rum from the respondent Puerto Rico Distilling, and preparing and packing
it for sale and distribution.
Raw materials used by the respondent Ronrico include raw rum, blending
materials, cases containing empty bottles, labels, screw caps, glue and Cel-O-Seals.
The gross value of such materials, purchased and used by it during the six-months'
period immediately preceding the hearing amounted to $332,600, of which total
75 percent i came from sources outside of Puerto Rico and from the United
States and Spain.
Rum prepared and packed by the respondent Ronrico for sale and distribution
within the same period amounted, in vOlume, to 104,985 cases and, in value,
to $220,000, about 95 percent of which was sold and delivered to points located
in the continental United States and about 19/100 percent of which was sold
and delivered to foreign countries.
C. Corporate and adnunistratave relationship between the two respondents
The respondent Puerto Rico Distilling, elder of the two corporations, was incor-
porated in 1911. The respondent Ronrico was formally organized in 1935 as a
joint venture of the respondent Puerto Rico Distilling and the Florida Cane
Products Corporation, a Florida corporation, for the production, distribution
and sales of a certain processed rum known and trade-marked as "Ronrico".
The respondent Ronrico was formed and incorporated to serve, according
to Articles of Agreement made in April, 1935, as the exclusive and sole sales
agent in Puerto Rico, the- United States and all "other" foreign countries, for all
rum and other alcoholic beverages produced by the respondent Puerto Rico
Distilling, of less than 190 proof. With certain modifications, the existing
agreement between the two parties provides for the continuation of the sales
agency status of- the respondent Ronrico?
Fifty percent of the original capital stock of the respondent Ronrico was
issued to the Florida Cane Products Corporation, which held a certain processing
patent for the aging and maturing of alcoholic beverages. By terms of a contract
entered into in April, 1935, the Florida Cane Products Corporation assigned its
license to manufacture under the said patent to the Ronrico Corporation. The
remaining fifty percent of the capital stock was issued to the Puerto Rico
Distilling Company. In addition to the assignment of sales and manufacturing
rights, the respondent Puerto Rico Distilling and the Florida Cane Products
Corporation each paid $10,000 for its share of the capital stock in the new
corporation.
Thereafter, in 1935, all legal and beneficial interest in Ronrico previously held
by the Florida Cane Products Corporation, was acquired by Fred S. Meyer, as
Trustee for certain beneficiaries, who created a trust known as the "Puerto
Rican Trust." In 1941 additional trustees were selected to continue the trust and
the joint venture until 1955, and, by novation, the Puerto Rican Trust was sub-
stituted for the Florida Cane Products Corporation in the latter's 1935 contract
with Ronrico.
Financial control of the respondent Ronrico remains, in substance, unaffected
by modifications of the old agreement , 50 percent of all Ronrico stock still being
controlled by the respondent Puerto Rico Distilling and 50 percent by the "Puerto
z Modification, in 1941, of the original agreement provides that the respondent Puerto
Rico Distilling shall have the right to sell rum in bulk and in Puerto Rico to licensed
rectifiers, for use and resale, but that the name of Puerto Rico Distilling Company or
Ronrico shall not appear on labels, packages , or other advertising material used on products
thus sold to purchasers other than the respondent Ronrico.
RONRICO CORPORATION 1153
Rican Trust." Neither of the two holding parties may dispose of any of its
Ronrico stock without consent of the other. The modified agreement also pro-
vides that each of the two parties shall be represented upon Ronrico's board of
directors by one-half of such directors.
The current agreement also provides that the respondent Ronrico shall operate
under two chief executive officers of equal rank, authority and power, one chosen
by and representing the respondent Puerto Rico Distilling, and the other chosen
by and representing the "Puerto Rican Trust," the former officer to supervise
Ronrico's affairs in Puerto Rico and the latter to supervise its affairs in the
United States.
According to its present by-laws, the respondent Ronrico's business affairs
are under the management of a Board of Directors consisting of six members.
Under the terms of the above-described agreement three members of the board
represent the respondent Puerto Rican Distilling and three represent the "Puerto
Rican Trust". As members of the present Board, the following three individuals
represent the respondent Puerto Rico Distilling: Lorenzo Oliver, who is also
president and general manager of the respondent Puerto Rico Distilling; Carlos
Esteva, Jr., who is also a director of the respondent Puerto Rico Distilling; and
Antonio Esteva Vidal, who is also a director of the respondent Puerto Rico
Distilling.
D. Operating relationship between the two respondents
In brief, the operations of the two respondents are carried on as follows.
The rum sold and distributed by the respondent Ronrico is distilled by the
respondent Puerto Rico Distilling, in the plant, by the employees, and with the
equipment of the latter respondent, but in accordance with the patented formula
held by the respondent Ronrico and under its technical supervision. The rum
thus distilled is then placed in storage for aging and maturing in barrels owned
by the respondent Ronrico but in warehouses owned by the respondent Puerto
Rico Distilling. Upon order from the respondent Ronrico, the respondent Puerto
Rico Distilling furnishes to it, at cost, the rum distilled and stored as above
described. The rum is then rectified and bottled, sold and distributed by the
respondent Ronrico.
Until September, 1942, when the respondent Ronrico moved its operations to
a new plant, the blending and bottling of the matured rum was done in buildings
owned by the treasurer of the respondent Puerto Rico Distilling and by equip-
ment furnished by that company, but by labor employed by the respondent
Ronrico. While the record implies that the respondent Ronrico owns the new
plant into which it moved in October, 1942, as well as new bottling equipment,
there is no evidence that there has been any change in the original contractual
provisions that the respondent Puerto Rico Distilling shall "furnish the buildings
and equipment" for the bottling and rectifying operations engaged in by the
respondent Ronrico. In any event, the respondent Ronrico holds neither bottling
nor rectifying permits, but operates under permits issued to the respondent
Puerto Rico Distilling.
Labor relations policies of the respondent Ronrico are under the'direct executive
and administrative control of the two co-presidents, Esteva and Meyer, and David
L. Hulsman, secretary and treasurer. Esteva has his residence in San Juan,
Puerto Rico, while Meyer and Hulsman maintain residences in Florida. Huls-
man, however, spends from one-third to one-half of his time administering the
respondent's affairs in Puerto Rico. Among other responsibilities, Hulsman is
in administrative control of the bottling operations at Arecibo.
1154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The record reveals no exchange or transfer of employees between the respondent
Ronrico and the respondent Puerto Rico Distilling . President Oliver, of the lat-
ter corporation , testified that he knew of no occasion when it had used the services,
of employees of the respondent Ronrico in its operations Services of certain
technical and administrative employees of the respondent Puerto Rico Distilling,
however, are available to and are used by the respondent Ronrico, the latter
corporation paying the former for such services.
In August , 1941, Hector Oliver was appointed plant superintendent of Ronrico,
and he has since that time been in direct charge.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Union de Trabaiadores de la Industria Licorera , Local #4, affiliated with the
Confederacion General de Trabajadores ( C. G. T ), and Union de Trabajadore's de
In Industria Licorera de Arecibo , affiliated with the , Federaction Libre de Traba-
jadores de Puerto Rico ( F. L T.), which in turn i s affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor , are labor organizations admitting to membership employees
of the respondent Ronrico.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
1. Operations of the respondent Ronrico
Only the employees of the respondent Ronrico are involved in the issues of this
case.
During the latter half of 1941 and until mid-September 1942, the period within
which the complaint alleges certain unfair labor practices were engaged in, the
respondent Ronrico's receiving , rectifying, bottling and shipping operations were
conducted in what was termed at the hearing as the "old plant ." During this
period two shifts of workers were bmploy ed.
In the bottling department of the "old plant" the operations , in brief, were as
follows : empty bottles were washed, drained and inspected ; the bottles were
placed on the "filler" and filled with rum ; employees placed caps upon the bottles
by hand ; the bottles were placed upon it conveyor line , where inspection was made
for impurities in the rum , where the caps were crimped tightly upon the bottle
and where labels were placed upon the filled bottles ; other operators placed special
stamps upon the bottles ; and finally Cel-O-Seals were placed over the tops of
the bottles . The old plant also included a "blending room," where the rum was
blended, rectified and filtered . From the blending room the rum was pumped
to an upper floor into bottling tanks, and by gravity descended to the "filler" in
the bottling department.
Early in 1942 plans were made for moving to a new building and for the in-
stallation of automatic machinery . On September 11 operations in the old plant
ceased, and on October 16 they were resumed in the new plant.
In the new plant only one shift of employees was required as contrasted with
two shifts in the old plant , and only about one-half as many employees . Opera-
tions are now mainly mechanical. -Olivar thus summarized work on the bot-
tling line under the new set-up :
The filler machine works by itself . Doesn't need nobody to operate. The
same way with the capping machine. Pick up a case of ,caps and throw
them in the hopper and it works itself . The label , you put a man on the
glue deposit and it works by itself. The other men , you put on the strip
stamp , Cel-O -Seal and putting the bottles in the cases , and that's all. °
RONRICO' CORPORATION 1155
Shortly before the shut-down of the old plant, about 100 employees were
working regularly in the shipping room, blending room, dumping and bottling
department. Only about 50 workers were employed upon resumption of opera-
tions in the new plant.
The complaint does not allege that the shut-down in September, 1942, was
an unfair labor practice.
2. Labor organizations among Ronrico's employees
The record reveals the presence of no labor organizational activities among
the respondent Ronrico's employees before the. spring of 1941. On April 1 of
that year the C. G. T. issued a charter to certain employees of the respondent
Puerto Rico Distilling and the local organization became known as the Union
de Trabajadores de la Industria Licorera, affiliated with the C. G T. In June
a number of Ronrico employees joined this local. Thereafter the Ronrico group
became Local No. 4, a branch of the Arecibo local, elected its own officers and
held separate meetings. Antonio Natal was elected president, an office which
he continued to hold at the time of the hearing.
On August 30, 1941, some of the respondent Ronrico's employees formed an-
other local and applied for affiliation with the F L. T. On September 9 the
F. L T. issued a charter to the local, which was called the Union de Trabaja-
dores de ]a Industria Licorera de Arecibo, 1'. It, affiliated with the F. L. T.
Pedro Galarza was the leader of this organizational activity, was elected presi-
dent, and continued in that office until November, 1942. The question as to
Galarza's status as a supervisory employee is one of the disputed issues in
the case.
3. Status of Galarza as a supervisory employee
(a) His function and designation, conflicting evidence as to his title and pdwers
Since the validity of an existing contract between the respondent Ronrico and
the F. L T., attacked by the complaint, may be affected by the status of
Pedro Galarza, whose leadership and activity on behalf of the F. L. T. is not
disputed, it is necessary first to examine and to resolve the conflicting evidence
bearing upon this point.
It is undenied that Galarza was first employed by Ronrico in 1936, and that
for a period thereafter he worked at various non-supervisory jobs. It is like-
wise undisputed that since 1941, both in the old plant and in the new, Galarza
had and now has charge of maintenance of certain machines used in bottling
operations.
Foreman Tomas Colon, whose discharge is also one of the issues in the
case, testified that in September, 1941, he was informed by Hector' Olivar,
previously identified as having become plant superintendent in August, 1941, that
from then on Galarza would be the "assistant foreman". Both Olivar and
Galarza, however, denied that Colon was so informed, and Olivar testified that
such an appointment had never been made. Colon further testified that during
his two-weeks' vacation in July, 1942, Galarza had charge of the bottling de-
partment, that when he returned he found various personnel changes made
on the conveyor line,' and that, when he attempted to rescind the changes,
Olivar intervened and instructed him to keep the men where Galarza had placed
them. Olivar testified that he, himself, assumed charge of the bottling depart-
ment during Colon's vacation, and Galarza denied that he took the foreman's
place during this period. Neither Olivar nor Galarza, however, were questioned
as to the personnel changes and Olivar's approval of them, referred to by Colon.
Furthermore, Colon's testimony is supported by that of Natal and de Jesus.
1156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
who both stated that they saw Galarza assign workers to their places in the
bottling department. The undersigned credits Colon's testimony.'
Colon further testified that it had been his duty to insert in the tune-card
rack the time cards of the men for whom there would be work each day.
Omission to put a man's time card in the rack was the equivalent of laying
him off. Sometime after September 1941 Olivar instructed Colon, according to
the latter, to come at 8 a. m. instead of 6: 45 as before"
Since the cards had to be in the rack at 7 a. in. when the men arrived Galarza
came earlier than previously and took over this job. Galarza denied this,
saying that the cards always remained in the rack. Since there was not work
for everyone every day, the undersigned does not credit Galarza's explanation
or his denial. -
During the first day of the hearing Olivar testified that presently, in the new
plant,.Galarza is only a "laborer", but that in the old plant he was "assistant
to the foreman", and that he took the foreman's place when the latter was out
On the fifth day of the hearing, however, Olivar testified that Galarza now has
the "same job he had in the other place," but denied that he had, in the old
plant, ever been appointed to or acted in the capacity of an assistant foreman.
Olivar also denied that Galarza ever had charge of the training of new employees
on the bottling line.
On October 19, 1942, Secretary Hulsman, to whom Olivar was directly respon-
sible, informed the Board's Regional Director in San Juan, by letter, that
Mr. Galarza has worked for the Ronrico Corporation for some
years. Being somewhat more intelligent than the average employee and
having a certain amount of mechanical ability, Mr. Galarza has been em-
ployed for the past year and a half as an assistant foreman in charge of
mechanical equipment. His specific duty is maintenance of mechanical
equipment used on the Bottling Line and in connection with this work he`
supervises the training of additional personnel hired to operate machinery
and equipment. [Italics supplied.]
Although Galarza was paid by the hour, and Colon by the week, during the
period material to the issue in this case, the payroll records show that Galarza
worked from 20 to 30 more hours each week than most of the other employees
in the bottling department. Furthermore, upon the signing of the contract in
September, 1942, discussed hereinafter, Galarza's pay was increased, retro-
active to July 23, 1942, from 30 cents per hour to 40 cents per hour, the latter
wage being specified in the contract as applicable only to "foremen assistants."
(b) Conclusions as to Galarza as a supervisor
The Trial Examiner is convinced, by the credible and uncontradicted evidence,
that from September, 1941, until the cessation of operations in the old plant
Galarza was the assistant foreman of the bottling department, that he exercised
supervisory powers in the selection and assignment of workers to their jobs,
that he instructed new workmen and that the respondent Ronrico must be held
accountable for unfair labor practices, if any, committed by him.
B The respondent brought out on cross-examination that more than 10 years prior to the
hearing Colon had been convicteed of a criminal offense not involving veracity or honesty.
Colon admitted the conviction, showed a commutation of sentence, and explained that the
Company knew of it when he was first hired Colon impressed the undersigned as a forth-
right, honest witness The conviction is not regarded as affecting Colon's credibility in the
slightest degree. -
9 Olivar denied that he told Colon to come at 8 a. in The undersigned does not credit
his denial.
RONRICO CORPORATION 1157
B. Events leading up to the execution. on September 1, 1942, of a closed shop
contract between the F. L. T. and the respondent Ronrico
1. Notice given the respondent that the C. G. T was organizing
In September, 1941, Antonio Natal, head of the C. G. T. local, visited Hulsman
in San Juan for the purpose of obtaining recognition of the C. G. T. by the
respondent Ronrico. Natal informed Hulsman that his organization had about'
48 members, but the secretary told him that he would not recognize it, since
lie was without authority. No offer to prove majority representation was
made by Natal. ,
The following day Hulsman went to the plant in Arecibo, where he interviewed
both Natal and Galarza, told them that he was going "north" and could take
no further steps until his return. The next day a notice was posted in the plant
which read, in part, as follows :
NOTICE TO OUR LABORERS
The daily press has brought news in the sense that the laborers of this
corporation have taken steps to join labor unions, some towards C. I. 0.10 and
others towards the American Federation of Labor.
We hereby emphatically state that as to these movements towards unions,
this Corporation has remained and will remain completely neutral, with-
out showing leanings towards one labor organization or the other.
The notice was signed and approved both by Olivar and Hulsman.
The record reveals no further effort by the C. G. T. to obtain recognition as
the, bargaining agent for the employees of the respondent Ronrico.
2. Management's approval of Galarza as leader of the F. L T.
During the latter part of August 1941, superintendent Olivar and Jose Victor
Oliver, who is brother-in-law of Esteva, and also assistant manager and treasurer
of the respondent Puerto Rico Distilling but without office in the respondent
Ronrico, discussed having Galarza lead the organization of the F. L. T. to offset
the strength of the union led by Natal. This discussion was carried on in the
presence of Tomas Colon, foreman of the bottling department']
As found above, organization of the F. L. T. at the respondent Ronrico's plant
was begun on August 30, and Galarza was made temporary president. In Sep-
tember he was elected to the regular office.
In September 1941, after Colon had been told that Galarza would be assistant
foreman, Olivar told Colon to let Galarza have a free hand ; that he could work
as many hours as he wanted to because he was being of service to the company
in the matter of dividing the workmen, setting up an organization of the Free
Federation of Labor (F. L. T.). Colon thereafter followed those instructions 12
io Evidence establishes that during the early period of the C G T organization in the
respondent Ronrico's plant, its members were led to believe that the C. G. T was affiliated
with the C. I. 0.
11 Findings as to this incident rest upon the credible testimony of Colon Although Jose
Victor Oliver was not questioned upon the specific point, he denied that he had ever given
Olivar either instructions or recommendations concerning union activities at the Ronrico
plant. When Olivar was asked about the incident, he replied, "I don't recall that con-
versation ; I don't believe that conversation ever took place " Because of following events,
undisputed, the Trial Examiner finds the denials of Jose Victor Oliver and Olivar to be
unconvincing.
12 This finding is based on Colon's uncontradicted testimony.
1158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Coercive activities of Galarza in organizing the F. L. T. local
During the latter part of August, 1941, Galarza called employee Guillermo
Quinones into the toilet of the plant during working hours and, according to
the latter's uncontradicted testimony, told him : a
Look, Quinones, I have orders from Hector Olivar and from San Juan to
destroy this union which is here in this plant and to which I [sic]
belong. Inasmuch as we can't go against the tide and inasmuch as it has
been, assured to me that when the new plant begins, that only those who
join the union which I am going to organize will get work , and inasmuch
as you are one of the oldest employees of the plant, I want you to cooperate
with me to make an organization and affiliate it to the F. L. T.
Quinones demurred, and pointed out that previously'an attempt to form a union
affiliated with the F. L. T. had resulted in the discharge of its directors Galarza
replied that this time it was with the approval of management, and that be-
cause Quinones had children lie should not jeopardize his livelihood. A few
days later Quinones discovered that he had been appointed financial-secretary
of the organization being formed by Galarza He protested to Galarza that
he had given no authority warranting this appointment. The assistant fore-
man answered that he knew Quinones would cooperate with him because he had
children and would not want to lose his job.
Also before the first meeting of the F. L T. Galarza similarly approached
employee Felix Santiago. Santiago's account of Gala•za's remarks is uncon-
tradicted. The employee testified :
He said to me thai he was going to form a group to join the F. I. T. union;
that he knew that I was one. of the o1(1 and efficient workers there and that if
I wanted to join with hum the F. L. T. union. That Mr. Hector Olivar had
placed him there to destroy the C G T Inasmuch as I was one of the old
employees, that I ought to go along with him there because one should not
go against the tide and I might lose my job.
In view of the foregoing findings, many of which rest upon undisputed testi-
mony, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that Galarza was accorded Olivar's
open approval in organizing the F. L T., and that he served as an instrument
and agent of management in its campaign of hostility against the C. G. T.
4 Interference and coercion by Superintendent Olivar
(a) Olivar's expressed hostility toward the C. G. T. and Natal
Also in July, 1942. Olivar told president Natal of the C. G. T. local, ". .
You people of the C. G. T have me fed up. You can go to hell '1 14
During the latter part of June, 1942, Olivar told employee Quinones, upon
the latter's return from a layoff, that they were having some "union trouble" in
the plant because Antonio Natal, his "public enemy No. 1," had placed most
13 Quinones placed the incident described as occurring during the "early days" of Septem-
ber. Minutes of the F. L T . meeting of August 30 , however, show that Quinones was
made secretary at that meeting , and according to his own testimony Galarza approached
him before the meeting.
14 Although at first denying having made this remai k to Natal , Olivar then admitted
"I told him I was fed up with his complaints I told him I was fed up with his complaints
because he used to complain to me about two or three times a day. I didn't mention no
C. G T." The Trial Examiner does not accept the superintendent 's denial as true
RONRICO CORPORATION 1159
of the older workers in the C. G T., but that this organization was "almost fin-
ished because we have destroyed it with the F. L. T.""
5. Olivar's effort to have Foreman Colon discriminate against C. G T. members
A few days after his return on July 17, 1942, from a two-weeks' vacation Foie-
man Colon, whose discharge is described hereinafter, was instructed by Olivar
not to be considerate, in any way, toward the "old workmen", and that some
means should be found of getting rid of them. The two went into the office
occupied by Olivar, and upon the latter's dictation the foreman typed a list
of 26 of the employees with long service. Thereupon, also at Olivar's dicta-
tion, Colon penciled a cross beside the name of each of the 26 who was then
an F. L. T. member. Colon was instructed that those not marked were to be
"gotten rid of," and that the F. L. T. members would be employed in the new
plant when opened.
The foreman, however, refused to comply with Olivar's instructions.'6
6. Early negotiations between the F L. T. and the respondent Ronrico
Early in June 1942 the F. L. T. local began negotiations with the respondent
Ronrico looking toward a written agreement. In July the local asked for and
obtained the assistance of the parent organization, and thereafter negotiations
for the local were carried on by Prudencio Rivera Martinez, head of the F. L. T.
in Puerto Rico and former Commissioner of Labor for the Insular Government.
At an informal conference preceding actual negotiations, President Esteva
informed Rivera that he desired proof that the F. L. T. local actually repre-
sented a majority of the employees.
On July 23 Esteva met with Rivera 17 and a committee of the local at the office
of Jose Victor Oliver in the Ron Llave plant,'6 a concern of which Jose Victor
is president." At this meeting it was agreed that any wage increases granted
as a result of further negotiations would be made retroactive to that date."
16 The finding rests upon Quinones ' credible testimony and subsequent events. Olivar
testified, with respect to the occasion, "I recollect a conversation but it was not about
a union "
10 The findings in this section ai a based upon Colon 's credible testimony . Olivai denied
having any knowledge of the list or of having told Colon that certain employees were
to be dismissed . Oliver 's testimony , however, where unsupported by more convincing
evidence, is untrustworthy, as pointed out elsewhere in this report The list prepared by
Colon, which is in evidence, is upon one of the respondent Ronrico's inventory forms.
37 The paternal and maternal surnames are both used by Spanish custom , the paternal
preceding the maternal. But Jose Victor Oliver is the son of Lorenzo Oliver, president
of the respondent Puerto Rico Distilling.
1$ This was the plant of a corporation having , so far as the recoi d shows , no connection
with the respondents.
19 Counsel for the Board implies that the holding of the meeting in Jose Victor Oliver's
office is significant as showing a connection between the respondent Puerto Rico Distilling
and the respondent Ronrico in carrying out labor policies As found above, Jose Victor
Oliver is also the assistant manager and director of the respondent Puerto Rico Distilling
There is no evidence that Jose Victor Oliver did more than loan the use of his office for
the meeting, or that he took any part in the discussion As found above, the Ronrico
administiative office is in San Juan, many miles from Arecibo, and Esteva is Oliver's
brother-in-law. The Trial Examiner finds that the holding of the meeting in the Ron
Llave office is without significance in determining the issue of the labor-relations connec-
tion between the respondent Ronrico and the respondent Puerto Rico Distilling.
20 Although Esteva denied that any agreement was reached that day, Rivera testified
that this one point was agreed upon The latter's testimony is supported by the contract
eventually signed in September and described hereinafter.
11
1160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
7. Signing of the petition of July 25 ; acceptance of the petition as proof
of majority
Upon the advice of Rivera, the local drew up a petition for presentation to
the respondent Ronrico as proof of majority representation. The text of the
petition read as follows :
ARECIBO, P. R.
July 25, 1942
RONRICO CORPORATION,
San Juan, Puerto Rico
Attention Mr. CARLOS ESTEVA, Jr., President.
Sirs: We, the undersigned, do hereby state:
That we are employees of the Ronrico Corporation, working in the bot-
tling plant in the City of Arecibo ;
That we are affiliated with the Union Trabajadores Industria Licorera de
Arecibo ;
That said Union is affiliated with the Federacion Libre de los Traba-
jadores de Puerto Rico
During working hours Galarza brought the petition to employees on the con-
veyor line in the bottling department and asked them to sign.21 The record does
not show how many signatures were obtained by Galarza, but he testified that
all signatures were secured by himself and one other. Fifty-six employees,
including Galarza, signed the document, which was then submitted to Esteva.
Esteva then instructed the local management of the plant to check the signatures
with the pay rolls since the first of 1942. Esteva testified that afer having had
the petition checked he was satisfied that the signatures were authentic and
that they represented a majority of all employees who appeared on the pay rolls
during the preceding two months, regardless of the length of their service.
8. Negotiations following the petition
Several negotiating conferences were held following the presentation of this
petition to the respondent Ronrico. Many proposals and counterproposals were
made. Esteva and Meyer, the latter in Miami, Florida, exchanged correspond-
ence concerning the details of an agreement Although both co-presidents at
first opposed granting certain closed shop provisions to the F. L T., they finally
yielded on this point and granted the provisions hereafter set out.
9. Employees' letters of August 21 and August 29
Before the contract was executed, however, Esteva received the following letter,
signed by 25 of the older employees then on the pay roll:
ARECIBO, P. R.
August 21, 1942
Mr. CARLOS ESTEVA
Pres. Ronrico Corp.,
San Juan, P. R.
DEAR SIR : We the oldest laborers of the Ron Rico having assembled in
a meeting have agreed to set forth and respectfully make of you the following
request.
21 Galarza denied obtaining any signatures in the plant The Trial Examiner does not
accept his denial as true. The assistant foreman admitted "making propaganda" for the
F. L. T in the plant ; the finding rests upon this admission and upon the credible testi-
mgny of employees de Jesus and Santiago.
RONRICO CORPORATION 1161
That the two shifts of laborers who are now working in the factory of the
said corporation be laid off and that there be immediately reorganized one
shift of all the oldest laborers as we are as aforesaid, for the following
reasons:
1. That due to the scarcity of shipping now prevailing, the Corporation
is not in a position to give forty hours of work to each of the shifts.
2. That due to the present situation articles of prime necessity are very
high making it very impossible for it laborer to exist on the pittance that is
earned in the plant at this time.
3. That we understand that the Corporation is warehousing the rum which
is being manufactured and that it will shortly be obliged to close its plant,
thus creating a somewhat difficult problem for its oldest laborers who have
been cooperating with the said Corporation for the space of six or seven
years.
4. That within a short time the factory will be removed to the Porto Rico
Distilling Company, the Company being thereby obliged to lay off one of
the two shifts which are now working at the factory, and, being sure that
preference will be given to the oldest laborers, we believe that steps ought to
be taken right now to organize the workers for the greater convenience of
the Corporation's interests and the benefit of the laborers.
5. That we make this demand believing ourselves justly entitled thereto
and free from prejudice against anybody and without there being connected
therewith any Union or any person in particular other than we the laborers
themselves.
6. We hope that as a just man and above all a human being you will
take our situation into consideration and will proceed immediately to satisfy
our wishes ; that we in turn promise you to continue to, cooperate with
you and with the Corporation as we have been doing up to this time.
Awaiting your most considerate answer,
We subscribe ourselves respectfully yours,
LABORERS OF THE RON Rico CORY.
NOTE : All correspondence concerning this should be addressed to the
local office of the Corporation for attention of the laborers.
Esteva made no reply to this letter
On August 29, Natal, head of the C. G T. local, wrote Esteva as follows :
You have in your possession a letter dated August 21, 1942, from us the
laborers who have been longest with your corporation, and on which we
have placed our signatures, but up to date the same has not received
the attention which it deserves We wish this letter to serve as a re-
minder of the earlier letter.
We are anxiously awaiting a 22 reply to our letter, as President of a
Corporation of such prestige in Puerto Rico, we ought already to have
received a reply. We want to make it appear that at no time did a Union
or any labor organization have anything to do with the letter to which we
we are referring in this letter. Since as laborers we have not received the
consideration to which we are entitled, we want in this letter to make
clear to you that we have the support of the only Union that is worthy of
our recognition, which is the C G T., to which we have belonged for more,
than a year and a half.
2z This should have been translated "your" instead of "a."
1162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We want to inform you, if you are not aware of it, that at the present
time there prevails in the shops of this Corporation a wave of dissatisfaction
and unrest, due to the fact that they have been taking' new laborers to
make them members of the Free Fedeiation, which has been hampering
the good operation of the work in the factory and being therefore prejudi-
cial to the interests of the same. Within the factory incredible things are
happening, it is being rumored by the President of the group affiliated with
the Free Federation that the latter has been duly recognized by you.
We want to make it clear to you that we are not disposed to tolerate
it that an individual who has only been working two or three months in this
company comes in to replace one who has been for more than five years
rendering services to the same
That we are also not disposed to continue to tolerate such injustice as
has been committed against us, by the mere fact that an assistant fore-
man, who is a laborer the same as us, wants to impose his wishes and his
will in the said shop The assistant foreman to whom-we refer is the
President of the group affiliated with the Free Federation, and has been
stating publicly among the laborers that he and the aforesaid labor organ-
ization have the backing and support of the Ronrico Corporation and its
chiefs These statements have created doubts and perplexity in our minds
as to the good judgment and the justice with which we have always believed
our superiors gifted.
After having explained our details of the situation now prevailing we
want you to do immediate justice.
Now that in our lives the bulwark of DEMOCRACY prevails and that we
brag so much of EQUALITY, we hope that you will show us what these
two words mean, answering these few lines.
On September 1 Esteva replied to Natal's letter, as follows :
I acknowledge receipt of your letter of August 29th last past in which
you make reference to another letter addressed to me by a group of em-
ployees in our Plant in Arecibo, dated August 21, 1942.
In the case of the letter of August 21st, signed by a group of employees
who made no mention of belonging to any Union, I decided that my best
answer to the same was to order the Manager of our Plant in Arecibo to
proceed to increase the salary of all of the employees, which was done. -
With respect to your letter of August 29th, in which you state that those
who signed the letter of the 21st are affiliated with the C. G. T. Union, I
wish to inform you that I am signing a Collective Bargaining Agreement
with the Union de Trabajadores de la Industria Licorera de Arecibo, affili-
ated with the Federacion Libre de Trabajadores de Puerto Rico, in accord-
ance with the terms of which our plant in that city will operate from
now on.
10. The contract of September 1, 1942
Despite Esteva's receipt of the above-quoted letters of August 21 and August
29, and despite the fact that 11 of the signatures on the former letter were
duplicates of signatures appearing on the petition of July 25, he signed a closed
shop contract with the F L. T. local, with no further check on its majority
status, on September 2 or 3, making the effective date of the agreement retro-
active to September 1, 1942. The contract covers a period of one year, with
automatic renewal provisions.
By terms of the contract the respondent Ronrico recognized the F. L. T. as
the exclusive bargaining agent for "all production employees employed by the
Corporation , but shall exclude management employees , office clerical employees,
RONRICO CORPORATION 1163
supervisory employees , foremen, foreladies , watchmen and any one who has
the right to hire and fire."
Provisions of the contract required that "all workers or employees covered by
this Agreement must be members in good standing . . ." of the F. L. T., and
that failure to pay dues regularly would be "deemed sufficient cause to deprive
him of his work ." New employees were to be given a period of two weeks within
which to join the F. L. T.
11. The closed shop notice of September 3
On September 3, in response to a written request of the F . L. T. of the same
date, the respondent Ronrico posted the following notice in the plant:
To ALL WORKERS OF THE RONRICO CORPORATION
You are hereby notified that in accordance with the collective bargaining
agreement dated on September 1, 1942 between the Ronrico Corporation
and the Union de Trabajadores de la Industria Licorera de Arecibo affiliated
to the Federacion, Libre de los Trabajadores de Puerto Rico, the following
-is provided :
"All the workers employed in this industry at the Ronrico Corporation, in
order to work in the plant of the corporation must belong to the Union de
Trabajadores de la Industria Licorera de Arecibo and keep in good stand-
ing in said union and up to date in the payment of his initiation fees
and regular union month ly dues or any other levy imposed by the union to
which lie belongs The failure of any member to pay any of the obligations
above mentioned is sufficient cause to deprive him of his work."
By September 15th of the current year every worker of this plant must
become affiliated to the above -mentioned union and they will be required to
present the proper credentials.
The MANAOEMF,N1
C. The shutdown, of September 11 and the refusal to reinstate certain employees
on October 16 when operations were resumed
1. Cessation of bottling operations on September 11
On September 11, 1942, the respondent Ronrico ceased bottling operations
at its "old plant ," and laid off all employees engaged in such work. A few
employees were retained to assist in moving material to the new plant. Olivar
testified that he told the employees "all together" that "we were going to shut
dowel until we resumed operation at the new plant." No announcement was
made as to when the new plant would begin operations.
Counsel for the Board stated that he did not contend that the shutdown on
September 11 was an unfair labor practice , nor does the complaint so allege.
2. Natal 's dismissal by letter - of September 11
Although all other employees were informed orally of the fact that there
would be no work for them until the new plant opened , on September 11 Olivar
sent a copy of the following letter to Foreman Colon , Antonio Natal and his
brother Felipe, and one to an office worker not involved in these proceedings :
Due to the abnormal situation in shipping transportation this company
finds itself overstocked with an excessive stock of beverage products on which
there have been paid large amounts of taxes and on which there are being
paid costly storage charges. There is not , at present , any prospect of ship-
1164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ping facilities in the immediate future, nor facilities to receive essential
raw materials for our production:
This ruinous situation obliges us to halt our work for an indefinite period
of time, and to exercise the strictest economy in the expenditures of the
company. Because of this, much against our will, we find ourselves obliged
on this date to dispense with your services for an undetermined period of
time.
This letter will serve as an 'acknowledgement of your good work in the
position occupied by you and in the continued loyalty for which we subscribe
ourselves.
3. The filing of'charges by the C. G. T. on September 26
On September 26 the C. G T. local filed charges with the Regional Office.
alleging that the respondent Ronrico had engaged in unfair labor practices and
that it had , among other acts, ( 1) given support to the formation and adminis-
tration of the F. L. T.; (2) discharged 29 named employees on September 11
because of their C G. T. membership; (3) discharged Colon on the same date
because he had refused to carry out the respondent's orders in giving preference
to F. L. T members; and (4) by other acts had interfered with rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act.
On the same.day the Regional Director informed Esteva, by letter, as to the
substance of the charge filed by the C. G. T., naming the individuals allegedly
discharged.
On October 3 Hulsman answered the Regional Director 's letter. In his reply,
Hulsman stated that all personnel , with but a few exceptions , had been laid off
on September 11 because of transfer of operations . He also stated , "Under the
terms of our contract we must employ , when operations again commence at our
neww Bottling Plant some time next week, only workers affiliated with the Union
de Trabajadores de la Industria Licorera de Arecibo . . . and the personnel
which we bring into our new plant will be drawn entirely from the ranks of the
Union de Trabajadores de la Industria Licorera de Arecibo .. "
4. Opening of the new plant on October 16
Operations in the new plant resumed on October 16: The record does not show
that any official notification was sent out to the employees . Olivar testified that
"by telling one or two we spread the word around" a few days before the
reopening . He further testified that he instructed a few to tell "all" the em-
ployees to return.
On the morning of October 16, according to Olivar , about 100 men appeared
outside the plant, including the 26 employees named in the complaint as having
been refused employment that day. Also according to Olivar's testimony, none
of the employees specifically asked for employment , but he assumed that they
were there for that purpose . Of the crowd , Olivar selected 46 employees who had
worked in the old plant for work in the new production and shipping depart-
ments Each of the 46 thus recalled was an F. L T. member.
The respondent Ronrico has not reemployed any of the 26 employees listed in
the complaint since the resumption of operations and until the hearing.
5. Olivar's claims as to selection for reemployment
Olivar, who admitted full responsibility for the selection of employees on
October 16, denied that the contract with the F. L. T influenced his decisions in
any way or that the requirements of management's notice of September 3 were
RONRICO CORPORATION 1165
ever carried out . He testified : "I picked out the ones I knew were the best work-
ers and had more efficiency , out of the hundred ," and that "experience" also was
the' basis of selection . He further admitted, however, that no records were
ever kept of individual production or efficiency.
Although testifying , at one point , that "experience" was one basis of his
selection , at another point he stated that no experience was needed to operate
the new machinery , which was automatic.
No evidence was offered by the respondent Ronrico to support Olivar's testi-
mony that the employees were selected for recall on the basis of relative effi-
ciency." On this point , it is worthy of note that on September 11 the two Natal
brothers were sent letters commending their "good work ," while no one of the
other three employees then working in the blending room received such letters.
Two of these latter three, both F. L. T. members , were reemployed on October
16, while the Natal brothers and the other employee , all C. G. T. members, were
rejected.
6. F. L. T.'s contention as to the selection
In conflict with Olivar 's testimony , Rivera, head of the F. L. T., testified
that he knew that the local business agent insisted upon the carrying out of
the contract provisions , that all workers must be F. L. T. members , when the
new plant opened.
7. Conclusions as to the respondent Ronrico's basis of selection of employees
on October 16 and thereafter
The Trial Examiner finds no merit in Olivar 's contention that selection of
employees on October 16 was based upon factors other than F. L. T. member-
ship. Credible evidence , including Hulsman's letter to the Regional Director
of October 3, referred to above, and the testimony of Rivera , establishes and the
,Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the respondent expressed its intention
to, and in fact did, select for reemployment on October 16 only members of the
F. L. T., and that such membership was the basis for Olivar 's selection. The
undersigned further finds that the purpose in hiring only F. L. T. members was
to eliminate the C. G T. as a factor to be reckoned with.
8. Conclusions in general as to the refusal to reinstate 26 employees on October 16
All parties stipulated that the C. G. T. records showed that each member of
the group of 26 employees named in the complaint was a member of the C. G. T.
Other evidence establishes that of these 26 employees , the following had also
signed the F. L. T. petition of July 25, 1942:
Elias Esteves Jose Martinez
Jose Perez Enrique Rivera
Felix Santiago Teodoro Delgado
Gonzalo Allende Francisco Diaz
Natalio Cardona Amado Martinez Badia
Each of the 10 also signed the letter from the oldest employees on August 21,
1942, and all of the signators of the letter were claimed by Natal in his letter to
Esteva of August 29 to be members of C. G . T. Thus, Esteva was put on notice
of a conflicting claim as to their membership . Eight of these names appeared
on the list which Olivar gave to Colon, and none of the names was checked
to indicate they were to be retained in employ at the new plant. When these
men appeared near the entrance of the new plant on the morning of October 16,
the day Olivar made his selection of'workmen for the new plant, these 10 were
559015-44-vol. 53-75
1166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
among the group identified as C. G. T. members. At the hearing Olivar indi-
cated, on a list of the names which included the 10, several of these men whom
he had seen in the C. G T. group that morning. Since Olivar made no selection
at all from that group, it is reasonably inferrable, and the undersigned finds,
that he regarded the 10 as associated with C. G. T. rather than F L. T. No rea-
son appears , therefore , for distinguishing here between the 10 and the other 16
listed iii paragraph 13 of the complaint.23
As found above, each of the following named 16 employees appeared at the
new plant on the morning of October 16:
Felipe Natal
Antonio Natal
Cruz Cordero
Antonio Mena
Juan Rodriguez
Adolfo Navarro
Luis Rodriguez
Luis Santana
Guillermo Beauchamp
Arturo Rivera
Luis de la Rosa
Guillermo Quinones
Elpidio Torres
Teodoro Rolon
Ricarte Vega
Rosendo Marquez
No one of them was an F. L. T. member, and no one of them was reemployed by
Olivar on October 16 or thereafter, although, from the closing of the old plant
until the hearing, at least eight workers, who were not employed by the respon-
dent Ronrico prior to the closing, were hired 24
The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the above-named 26 employees
were denied reemployment on October 16 in accordance with the notice posted
by Olivar on September 3, and the announced intent of Olivar's superior, Huls-
man, to the effect that employment upon resumption of operations would be
available only to members of the F. L. T. In short, it is found that these em-
ployees were refused reinstatement on October 16 because they were not
F. L. T. members and because they were C G. T. members.
9. Conclusions as to validity of the closed shop contract
Section 8 (3) of the Act provides that: ". . . nothing in this Act .. .
shall preclude an employer from making an agreement with a labor organiza-
tion (not established, maintained, or assisted by any action defined in this Act
as an unfair labor practice) to require, as a condition of employment, mem-
bership therein, if such labor organization is the representative of the em-
ployees as provided in Section 9 (a), in the appropriate collective bargaining
unit covered by such agreement when made."
It is clear that, if the contract between the respondent Ronrico and the F. L. T.
were valid and in accordance with the terms of the Act above quoted, the re-
spondent would have engaged in no unfair labor practice, within the meaning of
the Act, by refusing reemployment to the above-named 26 employees on October
210f all the C G. T. members only one, Pedro Torres, a watchman, was given employ-
ment on October 16. The other watchman reemployed was not a member of any union
The undersigned does not believe that the employment of Tories detracts from the discrimi-
natory character of the hiring on October 16 in view of the fact that the F L T had no
watchmen among its members . Furthermore , watchmen were excluded from the appro-
priate unit in the first paragraph of the F. L T contract. Another C. G T member, Julio
Bithorn, was reemployed on November 11, 1942, but the undersigned finds this insufficient
to efface the discrimination which occurred on October 16
24 Jose Nunez on 4/28/43 ; Enrique Rodriguez on 10/16/42 ; Martin Correa on 1/27/43 ;
Juan Acevedo Santiago on 11 /18/42 ; Sebastian Galarza on 11/18/42 ; and Francisco Llovet
on 4/22/43; Aurelio Miranda on 10/7/42; Calixto Velez on 3/17/43 In addition, at least
37 occasional workers were newly employed after October 16 , 1942 . None of the latter
was a C. G. T. member
RONRICO CORPORATION 1167
16. The complaint alleges, however, (1) that the F. L. T. did not represent
a majority in an appropriate unit, and (2) that the respondent assisted the
F. L. T. in the solicitation of its members.
The facts recited above plainly establish that the respondent, through assist-
ant foreman Galarza, openly assisted the F. L T. in obtaining signatures, in the
plant and during working hours, to the petition which served as proof of ma-
jority representation and upon which the respondent admits having based its
recognition of the F. L. T. as the exclusive bargaining agent. It has been
found that Galarza exercised supervisory powers and also that he was appointed
a special agent by the respondent Ronrico, and the latter must be held account-
able for any unfair labor practices engaged in by him. In coercing employees
to join the F. L. T. and to sign the petition, Galarza was acting with the full
approval of Olivar. Not only did the superintendent voice his hostility to the
C. G. T to Natal and Quiones, as found above, but he made an abortive effort
to obtain foreman Colon's assistance in discouraging membership in that organ-
ization. Thus, both by the direct action of Galarza and by the indirect action
of Olivar in discouraging membership in the C. G. T., the respondent encour-
aged employees to affiliate with the F. L. T., and thereby rendered assistance to
the latter organization.
Such assistance in encouraging membership in the F. L. T. deprived the em-
ployees of their right freely to choose their bargaining agent, and constituted an
unfair labor practice. It therefore follows, and the Trial Examiner finds, that the
contract of September 1, 1942, was invalid z6
The Trial Examiner considers it unnecessary, in view of the foregoing finding,
to determine whether or not the F. L. T. represented a majority of the respond-
ent Ronrico's employees in an appropriate unit."'
The contract being invalid the respondent Ronrico was not privileged to refuse
reemployment to any employees, on October 16, because they were not members
of the F. L. T. or because they were C. G. T. members. Discrimination as to
hire and tenure of employment, in the absence of a valid closed shop agreement,
because of membership in, or failure to join, any labor organization, is an unfair
labor practice."
Therefore, in summary, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the re-
spondent Ronrico, by its failure to offer employment to the 26 above-named em-
ployees on October 16, discriminated against them because they were not members
of the F. L. T., and because they were C. G. T. members, and thereby encouraged
membership in the former organization and discouraged membership in the C. G. T.
By the above-described conduct, and by the remarks of Galarza and Olivar,
set forth above, the respondent Ronrico has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
D. The discharge of Tomas Colon
1. Events leading up to his discharge
Thomas Colon began work for the respondent Ronrico in 1935, as a chauffeur.
After serving for a period as a clerk, he was made foreman of the bottling de-
partment in August 1941, when Olivar was promoted from that position to plant
superintendent.
As found above, Oliver made an unsuccessful effort in July 1942 to obtain Colon's
cooperation in discriminating against members of the C. G. T. Within a few
26 N L R B v. Electric Vacuum Cleaner Co., 315 U. 8 685.
26Ibid It may be said, however , that the matter of majority was not free from doubt.
=4 It is not intended hereby to cast any opprobrium on the F L T parent organization for
its conduct in negotiating the contract with the respndent Ronrico
1168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
days after this occurrence, Colon was sent, by Oliver and at the respondent's
expense, to see Esteva in San Juan. There the foreman was told that Olivar
and Galarza had accused him of being against the interests of the corporation.
Colon protested that he had always been a loyal employee, and that he should not
be held disloyal simply because he was "not backing" the F. L. T 25
On September 9 a group of Insular Department of Labor officials visited the
respondent Ronrico's plant. They requested the foreman to open the face of the
time clock, in order that they might examine the notice, above described, posted
in 1941. After the committee left, Olivar demanded to know why he had "dared"
to show the notice to its members. Colon replied that he had first examined their
official identification. Olivar then informed Colon that he would be discharged
two days later, and that he should not return looking for work thereafter because
he had "acted against the interests of the corporation."
On September 11 Colon received a letter of discharge identical to that quoted
above in the case of Natal. He was not reemployed, although his assistant, Gal-
arza, continued in employment throughout the lay-off period.
2. Contentions of the respondent as to the discharge of Colon
The respondent Ronrico contends that Colon was not reemployed on October
16 because the reorganization of the plant made the services of a foreman un-
necessary.
Olivar's testimony is unrefuted that since the reopening of the plant, there
being fewer employees, he has assumed direct charge of the bottling department,
and that since that date no foreman has been employed.
3. Conclusions as to the discharge of Colon
While Olivar's testimony is unchallenged that the position of "foreman" was
discontinued upon resumption of operations on October 16, it is likewise clear
that Galarza, the assistant foreman, has continued in the respondent's employ
since the date of the general lay-off, and it must be presumed, in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, that Colon was at least as capable as his own assistant.
Not only because of the preceding events, including Colon's having been sent to
Esteva because he would not assist the F. L. T. but also because of the letter of
discharge dated September 11, in which the respondent might reasonably have
been expected to give the same reason for the dismissal that it did at the hearing,
the Trial Examiner is not persuaded that there is merit in either reason given
by the respondent.
28 The above findings rest upon the credible testimony of Colon. Both Olivar and Esteva
admit the occasion of Colon 's being sent , at company expense , to San Juan , and Olivar ad-
mitted that he had heard complaints that Colon was favoring the C. G T. Olivar also
testified that he heard Colon was going to quit , and so sent him to Hulsman Esteva testi-
fled that he heard Colon was going to quit, so he summoned the foreman to see him to try
to urge him to stay. The Trial Examiner finds the testimony of both Olivar and Esteva
to be untrustworthy on this point . Not only is the testimony of each inconsistent with that
of the other, but it fails to coincide with the position taken by the respondent Ronrico,
at the bearing , that mechanization of the bottling process made the services of a foreman
unnecessary, that no , foreman position existed after September 11, and that therefore
Colon was not reemployed Since reorganization plans had been made long before August
1942 , it is reasonable to question whether or not the president of the respondent , knowing
that Colon 's job was about to cease, would call him to San Juan in an effort to prevent
him from quitting
29 The findings as to this incident rest upon the credible testimony of Colon . Olivar
merely answered in the negative when asked if he remembered "a conversation with Mr
Colon about two days before the plant closed. about his employment?"
RONRICO CORPORATION 1169
Credible evidence establishes that Colon was actually discharged because he
refused to join the respondent's campaign in discouraging membership in the
C. G. T. and in encouraging membership in the F. L. T., and the Trial Examiner
so finds.
Counsel for the respondent claims that Colon "is not entitled to protection under
the National Labor Relations Act" because he was a foreman. The Trial Exam-
iner considers it unnecessary to determine the merit of this contention. Section
8 (3) of the Act states that it is an unfair labor practice for an employer "by
discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment to encourage or dis-
courage membership in any labor organization." Colon's discharge was, in
effect, further encouragement of membership in the F. L. T. and discouragement
of membership in C. G. T., since the action was taken because the foreman refused
to discriminate against employees because of their union affiliation. The Trial
Examiner considers the question to be one, not of Colon's rights under the Act,
but of employees' rights to self-organization without ". . . discrimination in re-
gard to hire or tenure of employment . . . to encourage or discourage membership
in any labor organization."
The Trial Examiner is of the opinion and finds that, by the discharge of Colon,
the respondent Ronrico has interfered with and restrained its employees in the
exercise of the rights above described.
E. The discharge of Rafael Sanchez
1. Events leading up to his discharge -
Rafael Sanchez began work for the respondent Ronrico in 1940, as a sweeper.
Later he was transferred to the bottling line. In March 1941 he was inducted
into the armed forces. Sometime during the latter part of that year he was
discharged from the army, and thereafter reemployed by the respondent. Also
sometime in 1941 Sanchez was discharged by the respondent for drinking rum
in the plant, but was reinstated. ,
On August 26, 1942, Olivar found Sanchez drunk on the toilet floor during
lunch hour. The superintendent ushered him from the premises, discharged him,
and told him not to come back.
2. Contentions of counsel for the Board as to Sanchez ' discharge
The complaint alleges that Sanchez was discharged on August 26 because of
his membership in the C. G. T. and because he refused to join the F. L. T. All
parties stipulated at the hearing that records of the former organization showed
that as of August 26 , 1942, Sanchez was a member . In support of the allegation
of the complaint , Sanchez testified that on August 25 or 26 Galarza approached
him and told him that he must join the F. L. T. He refused , and the next day
was not allowed to work , according to his testimony.
3. Conclusions as to Sanchez' discharge I ,
Galarza denied having threatened Sanchez or refused to permit him to work.
While Galaraza's testimony was, in general, untrustworthy, as to this incident
the Trial Examiner accepts his denial as true.
The above findings as to Sanchez having been found drunk and removed from
the premises rest upon Olivar's testimony. The employee admitted having been
so removed on the charge of drunkenness; at first he placed the occasion as
having been a month or two before being definitely laid off, and later admitting
that he was "thrown out" on August 25 or 26. Sanchez' testimony, throughout,
was confused and unreliable. He insisted that he was discharged from the
1170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Army June 5, 1942, and that he was reemployed by the respondent after that
date. He produced Army discharge papers, however, which showed that he
had been released sometime before January 1942. Pay-roll records, moreover,
show that Sanchez was working for the respondent in May 1942
The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that Sanchez was not discharged on
August 26, 1942, because of the membership in the C. G. T. and his refusal to
join the F. L. T. It will be recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to
him.
F.. Conclusions as to the respondent Puerto Rico Distilling and its alleged unfair
labor practices
The findings of fact set forth in Section I above establish a close and integrated
corporate relationship between the respondent Puerto Rico Distilling and the
respondent Ronrico. The record contains no convincing evidence, however, that
the employer-employee relations herein involved extend beyond the respondent
Ronrico to the respondent Puerto Rico Distilling, or that the latter respondent
participated in the unfair labor practices committed by the former. Nor does it
appear necessary to the Trial Examiner in order to effectuate the policies of the
Act, to issue recommendations against the respondent Puerto Rico Distilling.
Accordingly the Trial Examiner will recommend that the complaint be dismissed
as to the Puerto Rico Distilling Company.30
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent Ronrico, set forth in Section III above,
occurring in connection with the operation of the respondent's business described
in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade,
traffic and commerce among the several States and Puerto Rico, and tend to lead
to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent Ronrico has engaged in certain unfair labor
practices, the Trial Examiner will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the respondent Ronrico discriminated as to the hire
and tenure of employment of the following named employees :
Elias Estevas
Jose Perez
Felix Santiago
Gonzalo Allende
Natalio Cardona
Jose Martinez
Enrique Rivera
Teodoro Delgado
Francisco Diaz
Amado Martinez Badia
Felipe Natal
Antonio Natal
Cruz Cordero
Antonio Mena
Juan Rodriguez
Adolfo- Navarro
Luis Rodriguez
Luis Santana
Guillermo Beauchamp
Arturo Rivera
Luis de la Rosa
Guillermo Quinones
Elpidio Torres
Teodoro Rolon
Ricarte Vega
Rosendo Marquez
because of their refusal to join the F. L. T. and because of their membership'
in the C. G. T. It has been found that the respondent Ronrico discriminated
81 National Linen Service Corp ., et al ., 48 N. L. R B. 171.
RONRICO CORPORATION 1171
as to the hire and tenure of employment of Tomas Colon, thereby discouraging
membership in the C. G. T. and encouraging membership in the F. L. T. In
order to effectuate the policies of the Act, it will lie recommended that the
respondent Ronrico offer to each of the above-named 26 employees immediate
reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without preju-
dice to his seniority and other rights and privileges, and that, if respondent
Ronrico has no need at the time for twenty-six additional workers, it then lay
off such employees as may be necessary to reduce its personnel to the normal
complement, following such practice of seniority or other non-discriminatory
procedure as it had been accustomed to employ prior to the time that it com-
menced its discriminatory practices as herein found. As to Tomas Colon, since
it has been found that the position of foreman has not been available since
October 16, 1942, it will be recommended that the respondent Ronrico offer to
him immediate reinstatement to his former or the nearest substantially equiva-
lent position available. It will also be recommended that the respondent Ronrico
make each of the 27 aforementioned employees whole for any loss of pay he has
suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination, by payment to him of a
sum of money equal to the amount he normally would have earned as wages
from the date of the discrimination 31 to the date of the offer of reinstatement,
less his net earnings 32 during that period.
It has also been found that the contract between the respondent Ronrico and
the F. L. T., dated September 1, 1942, is invalid because it was made with a
labor organization which had been assisted by unfair labor practices. In order
to insure to the employees the full and free exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act without interference, restraint, or coercion by the re-
spondent Ronrico, it will be recommended that the respondent withdraw and
withhold recognition from the F. L. T. as the representative of any of its
employees for the purposes of collective bargaining until such time as the
F. L. T. may be certified as their representative by the Board. It will further
be recommended that the respondent cease and desist from giving effect to its
contract, dated September 1, 1942, with the F. L. T., as well as to any extension,
renewal, modification, or supplement thereof, and any superseding contract
which may now be in force and that it notify its employees of action so taken.
Nothing herein, however, shall be deemed to require the respondent to vary
those wage, hour, seniority, and other such substantive features of its relations
with the employees themselves, if any, which the respondent established in
performance of the contract dated September 1, 1942, as extended, renewed, modi-
fied, supplemented, or superseded.
Having found that the respondent did not engage in an unfair labor practice
with respect to the discharge of Rafael Sanchez, it will be recommended that
the complaint be dismissed as to him.
n In the case of Tomas Colon, it has been found that the date of the discrimination
against him was September 11, 1942, in the case of the others, October 16, 1942. While
the brothers Natal likewise received letters of discharge at the same time as Colon, there
is no evidence that they would have worked during the shut-down period.
13 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere . See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Lumber Workers Union, Local 2590, N. L R B. 440 Monies received for work
performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal of other work-relief projects shall be
considered as earnings . See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B, 311 U. S. 7.
1172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Union de Trabajadores de In Industria Licorera, Local #4, affiliated with
the Confederacion General de Trabajadores (C. G. T.), and Union de Trabajadores
de la Industria Licorera de Arecibo, affiliated with the Federacion Libre de
Trabajadores de Puerto Rico (F. L. 'T.), are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of
Elias Estevas Juan Rodriguez
Jose Perez Adolfo Navarro
Felix Santiago Luis Rodriguez
Gonzalo Allende Luis Santana
Natalio Cardona Guillermo Beauchamp
Jose Martinez Arturo Rivera
Enrique Rivera Luis de la Rosa
Teodoro Delgado Guillermo Quinones
Francisco Diaz Elpidio Torres
Amado Martinez Badia Teodoro Rolon
Felipe Natal Ricarte Vega
Antonio Natal Rosendo Marquez
Cruz Cordero Tomas Colon
Antonio Mena
thereby discouraging membership in the C. G. T. and encouraging membership
in the F. L. T., the respondent Ronrico has engaged in and is engaging in unfair.
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in> Section 7 of the Act, the respondent Ronrico has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. In terminating the employment of Rafael Sanchez the respondent Ronrico
has engaged in no unfair labor practice within the meaning of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
Trial Examiner recommends that the respondent, the Ronrico Corporation and
its officers , agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in the Union de Trabajadores de la Industria
Licorera, Local #4, (C. G. T.) or any other labor organization of its employees,
or encouraging membership in the Union de Trabajadores de la Industria Licorera
de Arecibo (F. L. T.), or any other labor organization of its employees, by
discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees or in any other manner
discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of their employment ;
(b) Recognizing Union de Trabajadores de la Industria Licorera de Arecibo
(F. L. T.), as the representative of any of its employees for the purposes of
collective bargaining , unless and until that organization shall have been certified
by the Board as the representative of the employees ;
RONRICO CORPORATION 1173
(c) Giving effect to its contract, dated September 1, 1942, with Union de
Trabajadores de la Industria Licorera de Arecibo (F. L. T.), or to any extension,
renewal, modification, or supplement thereof, or to any superseding contract
with that labor organization unless and until that organization shall have been
certified by the Board as the representative of the employees as set forth in the
Remedy above;'
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organizdtion, to form, join, or assist
labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, or to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the' following affirmative action which the Trial Examiner finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Union de Trabajadores de la
Industria Licorera de Arecibo (F. L. T.), as the representative of any of its
employees for the purpose of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, until that or-
ganization shall have been certified by the Board as the representative of its
employees ;
(b) Offer to the 26 employees listed in Section V, The Remedy, above imme-
diate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions
in accordance with the views expressed in said section, and to Tomas Colon
immediate and full reinstatement to his former or nearest substantially equiva-
lent position without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or privileges;
(c) 'Make whole the employees named in the Remedy above for any loss of
pay they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against
them, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount which
lie normally would have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination
to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during
said period ;
(d) Immediately post notices to its employees in conspicuous places through,
out its plant at Arecibo, and maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty
(60) consecutive days from the date of posting, stating (1) that the respondent
will not engage in the conduct from which it is recommended that it cease and
desist in paragraphs 1 (a)„(b), (c) and (d) of these Recommendations; (2)
that it will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a), (b) and
(c) of these Recommendations; and (3) that its employees are free to become
or remain members of the Union de Trabajadores de la Industria Licorera, Local
#4 (C. G. T.), that its employees are not required to join the Union de Trabaja.
dores de la Industria Licorera de Arecibo (F. L. T.), and that it will not discrim-
inate against any employees because of membership in or activity on behalf of the
C. G. T. or because of failure to join the F. L. T.;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-fourth Region, San Juan,
Puerto Rico, in writing within ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this
Intermediate Report, what steps the respondent has taken to comply therewith.
It is further recommended that, unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report the respondent notifies the said Regional
Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take
the action aforesaid.
It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to the respondent
Puerto Rico Distilling and also in so far as the complaint alleges that the
respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices by the discharge of Rafael
Sanchez.
1174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 2-as amended, effective October 28,
1942-any party may within fifteen (15) days from the date of the entry of
the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article IT
of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Wash-
ington 25, D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting
forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the
record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he
relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support
thereof. As further provided in said Section 33,. should any party desire per-
mission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in
writing to the Board'within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring
the case to the Board.
C. W. WHITTEMORE,
Trial Examiner.
Dated August 16, 1943.