Sindicato Puertorriqueno de Trabajadores

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 13, 1970

184 N.L.R.B. 538 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

538 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
Sindicato Puertorriqueno de Trabajadores , affiliated
with Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher
Workmen of North America , AFL-CIO and
Cayey Industries, Inc., formerly known as Gor-
donshire Knitting Mills, Inc.
Cayey Industries , Inc., formerly known as Gor-
donshire Knitting Mills , Inc., Finrico , Inc., Cayey
Spinning Mills, Inc., Bonita , Inc., Tinto, Inc.,
Rizotex, Inc., Malcolm Knitting Mills, Inc., Gor-
don Realty , Inc. and Sindicato Puertorriqueno de
Trabajadores , affiliated with Amalgamated Meat
Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America,
AFL-CIO , Petitioner . Cases 24-CB-693 and
24-RC-3772
July 13, 1970
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING , MCCULLOCH, AND BROWN
On January 7, 1970, Trial Examiner Alba B.
Martin issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding , finding that the Respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and de-
sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner 's Deci-
sion. The Trial Examiner also found merit in cer-
tain objections filed by Employer Gordonshire to
an election conducted in Case 24-RC-3772 and
recommended that the election be set aside and
that a new election be conducted. Thereafter, the
Respondent filed exceptions together with support-
ing argument ;' Employer Cayey ,z Gordonshire's
new owner , filed cross -exceptions and an answering
brief; the General Counsel filed an answering brief
and the Respondent filed an opposition to Cayey's
cross-exceptions ; and Cayey filed a reply to the
General Counsel 's answering brief.'
' The General Counsel also filed an exception confined to the failure of
the Trial Examiner to require that the Not,ce to Members be posted by
Respondent in Spanish as well as in English As many of the employees in-
volved in this proceeding are Spanish speaking, we shall modify the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner in this respect
' After issuance of the Trial Examiner's Decision, Cayey Industries, Inc ,
became the new owner of Employer Gordonshire's enterprise
' Cayey seeks a dismissal of the petition in the representation proceeding
on the ground that it is not a successor to the original Employer or, alterna-
tively, a hearing on the issue of its successorship The critical issue raised
by Cayey is whether, since its assumption of ownership, the relationship
between it and its employees has undergone such change as to eliminate
the question concerning the representation of the production and main-
tenance employees in the collective-bargaining unit previously found ap-
propriate On the basis of the facts related by Cayey with respect to the na-
ture of its present operations and personnel complement, it appears that no
such change has taken place Nor do Cayey's plans point to any significant
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the various documents
filed thereafter, and the entire record in this
proceeding, and hereby adopts the findings, conclu-
sions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner,
as modified herein.4
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby
orders that the Respondent , Sindicato Puertor-
riqueno de Trabajadores , affiliated with Amalga-
mated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North
America, AFL-CIO, its officers , agents, representa-
tives, successors , and assigns , shall take the action
set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order, as modified herein:
1. Change the first sentence of paragraph 2(a) to
read as follows:
"Post at its business office and meeting halls, in
Cayey, if it has any , in both Spanish and in English,
copies of the attached notice marked `Appendix."'
2. In the last indented paragraph of the Appen-
dix attached to the Trial Examiner 's Decision,
change "Gordonshire Knitting Mills, Inc ., or any of
its affiliated companies " to "Cayey Industries, Inc."
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held on
June 12, 1969, in Case 24-RC-3772, be, and it
hereby is, set aside, and said case is hereby re-
manded to the Regional Director for Region 24 to
conduct a new election.
change in the basic business operations engaged in by Gordonshire Texas
Eastman Company, et al, 175 NLRB 626, Inter-Mountain Dairymen, Inc ,
143 NLRB 782, 783-784, New Laxton Coal Company, 134 NLRB 927,
928 We therefore find that Cayey is a successor to Gordonshire and that a
question concerning the representation of the employees now employed by
Cayey continues to exist and we shall remand the pending representation
case to the Regional Director for the holding of a new election, as recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner
' Our dissenting colleague agrees that the considerable violence which
here characterized the postpetition strike constituted unfair labor prac-
tices, but not that the election should be set aside The rule of Goodyear
Tire and Rubber Co , 138 NLRB 453, we believe, has served well in insuring
proper election atmosphere by considering all postpetition conduct as
possible grounds for setting aside an election We note also that the earlier
Southdown Sugars, Inc , 108 NLRB 114, relied on in the dissent, involved
only one incident of violence in the preelection strike
184 NLRB No. 56
SINDICATO PUERTORRIQUENO DE TRABAJADORES
[Direction of second election 5 omitted from
publication. I
MEMBER BROWN , dissenting in part:
I do not agree with the majority opinion that the
election held herein on June 12, 1969, should be
set aside.
My colleagues rely in part on the Union's con-
duct during the strike. I agree with them that the
Union should be held in violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act on that account, but it does
not follow that the Union thereby prevented the
employees from making the sort of uncoerced cho-
ice in the election which is their right. The Union's
conduct was related directly to the purposes of the
strike; it was not aimed at any election which might
be held in the future. Neither was it of the
character that would inevitably coerce employees
in their choice of a bargaining representative in any
future election. Nor do I find it reasonable to con-
clude, especially in the circumstances of this case,
that the misconduct was such as would likely'have a
coercive impact on any election. The last of it oc-
curred on May 19 and the election was not held
until June 12. And the stipulation for an election,
signed on May 20, was agreed upon by all the
parties as the peaceful means of resolving their un-
derlying representative differences.
Considering all these circumstances, namely, that
the Union's conduct was related directly to the
strike and not the election, the hiatus between the
strike and election, and the parties' decision, with
full knowledge of all that had transpired, to let the
election results speak for everybody, I cannot be-
lieve that the employees to whom the final decision
was left voted in an atmosphere which rendered im-
possible or improbable a free and untrammelled
choice.6
I also reject my colleagues' conclusion that there
were preelection misrepresentations by the Union
which require setting aside the election. With
respect to the radio announcements, circulars
signed by those allegedly misquoted over the radio
had previously been mailed to all the employees so
that any employees who may have heard the broad-
casts were unlikely to have been misled by them;
besides, I find no real variance between the views
attributed to the signers of the circulars over the
radio and the views expressed in the circulars. As
for the reference to a plant in Pennsylvania with
better working conditions than prevailed at the
Company's plant in Puerto Rico, the evidence
simply fails to disclose any misrepresentation that
could reasonably be expected to have had a signifi-
cant impact on the election.
Accordingly, the Union having won the election,
539
it is entitled to be certified as representative of the
employees involved.
' In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to be
informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their ad-
dresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior Un-
derwear Inc, 156 NLRB 1236, N L R B v Wyman-Gordon Co, 394 U S
759 Accordingly , it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list, con-
taining the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by
the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 24 within 7 days after
the date of issuance of the Notice of Second Election by the Regional
Director The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties
to the election No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the
Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances Failure to
comply with this reequirement shall be grounds for setting aside the elec-
tion whenever proper objec t ions are filed
6 Southdown Sugars , Inc , 108 NLRB 114
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ALBA B. MARTIN, Trial Examiner: This con-
solidated proceeding, all parties represented by
counsel, was heard before me in Hato Rey, Puerto
Rico, on September 15-18, 1969.' The proceeding
involves alleged violations of Section 8(b)( I )(A)
by the Union (by mass picketing, blocking en-
trances of cars and trucks, following a truck,
violence, threats, and other acts), and objections to
alleged conduct affecting the results of an election
held June 12, 1969. The issues in the CA case and
the RC case overlap considerably. After the hearing
all parties filed helpful briefs which have been duly
considered.
Upon the entire record and my observation of
the witnesses, I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The eight companies named above in the caption
of the RC case are affiliated corporations organized
under the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico which compose a single-integrated manufac-
turing enterprise at the town of Cayey, Puerto Rico,
where they are engaged in the production of
knitted goods for sale and shipment to points
located in States of the United States. All of the
above-named corporations operate plants under the
centralized control and direction of Malcolm Gor-
don, who is president and general manager of each
corporation. Labor relations policies are formu-
lated and enforced by said Malcolm Gordon for the
employees who work in all the plants. For the pur-
poses of this proceeding all of said companies con-
stitute a single employer which hereinafter is
referred to as the Company.
' Gordonshire Knitting Mills, Inc , filed the charge on May 5, 1969, and
the amended charge on June 24, 1969
540 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
During the year 1968, a representative period,
the Company purchased and had shipped to its
plant located at Cayey, Pureto Rico, materials and
equipment necessary for the conduct of its business
which were valued at more than $50,000. During
the same period it manufactured, sold, and shipped
to points located outside of Puerto Rico knitted
goods valued at more than $50,000.
Respondent admitted and I find that the Com-
pany is, and at all times material herein has been,
an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.'
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Sindicato Puertorriqueno de Trabajadores af-
filiated with Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher
Workmen of North America, herein called the
Union and Respondent Union, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Ill. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND INTERFERENCE
WITH THE ELECTION
A. The Union Takes Over the Strike
The Company operates in about eight buildings
along one street on the edge of Cayey called Indus-
trial Avenue. Prior to the events herein its em-
ployees were not represented by any union. On
April 30 and May 1 the employees on two shifts in
one building spontaneously struck over a grievance.
Several unions showed interest in the situation.
Beginning almost immediately the Union offered its
assistance and began to take over direction of the
strike, with the apparent willingness of the strikers.
Manuel Rosario, an organizer for the Union who
lives in and is a native of Cayey, arrived on the
scene shortly after the first shift went out. Peter
Huegel, a union representative whose office is in
San Juan, some 45-50 miles away, arrived a few
hours later on the morning of May 1. They and a
third union organizer from San Juan began im-
mediately to assist the strikers' existing "settlement
committee" and to form new committees, Felix
Bonilla , an employee leader of the strikers, continu-
ing on as president of the original committee. After
lunch May 1, Huegel and others obtained an inter-
view with William Bales, a 'plant manager, and de-
manded recognition- of the Union which was
refused. Huegel credibly testified that "We then
proceeded to the telegraph office with a committee
and sent a demand by wire to the Company." This
telegram, dated 4:01 p.m. May 1, claimed the
Union represented a majority of the production and
maintenance workers and requested recognition of
the Union. The telegram was signed by nine strikers
including Bonilla and Jorge Hernandez, who
became chairman of the picketing committee, and
' 29 U S C Sec 151, et seq
'' The committees included a picketing committee , a food committee, a
also by Manuel Rosario as a representative of the
Union. Although Huegel did not sign this telegram,
I find from his testimony that he was among those
who sent it in the name of the Union. Prior to April
30 the Union never claimed bargaining rights.
On May 2 the Union filed a petition in the
Board's Regional Office in San Juan claiming to
represent a majority. Huegel's testimony showed
that he was among those who decided to make this
move, although he did not sign the petition.
The strike lasted until on May 20 the Company
and the Union signed a stipulation for certification
upon consent election. Huegel signed for the
Union.
Strike activities were directed from a tent-like
structure, herein sometimes called the tent, which
served as strike headquarters, situated next to the
vehicle entrance to Respondent's office building
and across the street from the vehicle entrance to
Respondent's "Finrico" building. Manuel Rosario
and Peter Huegel were very active in the direction
of strike activities, including the picketing, and the
direction of the various strike committees.3 Huegel
had an especial status. He had only recently come
to Puerto Rico from the Continental United States,
he spoke but little Spanish, and he was widely
referred to by the strikers as "the American."
Although Respondent attempted to continue
operations, it had little success, and substantially all
of its approximately 800 employees were not work-
ing within a week.
B. Mass Picketing and Blocking, Violence, Threats
Undisputed and credited evidence proved that on
numerous occasions on May 5, 13, and 19, the
strikers engaged in mass picketing and blocking
tactics and that there were some threats and
violence. Huegel and Rosario were at the strike
scene on each of those days.
On May 5 at noon a group of about 35 strikers
formed a circle and blocked a car exiting from the
office building with two office workers for lunch.
The police made way for the car and it went out.
Strikers told the occupants they were not going to
come back. After lunch as the two office workers
and a third approached the pedestrian entrance to
the office building by foot, an identified striker
shouted, "Come over here and don't let them in."
Thereupon a mob of up to 60 rushed over from the
strike headquarters and swarmed around the en-
trance and tried to block it. Another office worker
who came from inside and opened the gate to assist
their entry was grabbed by an identified striker by
the shirt, which tore, and was hit in the lip by a fist
hard enough that the lip bled. An identified striker,
and others, shouted, "Don't let them in." After the
office workers finally got inside the gate and were
about to the entrance door to the building, an
clearing committee , a health committee , a propaganda committee, and
others
SINDICATO PUERTORRIQUENO DE TRABAJADORES
identified striker threw a bottle which smashed on
the sidewalk just in front of the door , a piece of the
flying glass hitting one office worker on the hand.
Towards the end of this incident first Rosario and
then Huegel arrived on the scene from the tent. Ac-
cording to the credited testimony of Jorge Santiago,
Rosario was with the mob before the bottle was
thrown.
On the witness stand Rosario did not deny his
presence at this incident , and Huegel admitted
being in the area and arriving just after it; and they
testified nothing about trying to prevent what hap-
pened or in any way disavowing it after the oc-
curence.
According to credible and uncontradicted
testimony , on May 5 a group of four or five strikers
accompanied by Manuel Rosario walked down In-
dustrial Avenue carrying a company ladder bent
more than half way back on itself . One of the
strikers said within the hearing of the Company's
maintenance director , " This is what we 're going to
do to the rest of it."
On May 5 , also, occurred the loudspeaker in-
cident . Maintenance Director Guzman had securely
mounted his own two loudspeakers on the top of a
car. The car left the administration building and
was proceeding slowly in front of the strike
headquarters tent . A group ran towards the car and
an identified striker and picket jumped on the car
and the loudspeakers came down with him.
Rosario , who saw the incident from the tent,
testified that the striker -picket looked as though he
was going to fall and he struck out his hand and the
loudspeakers came off . Upon the preponderance of
the evidence in the entire record it seems probable
to me, and I find, that the striker -picket inten-
tionally pulled the loudspeakers off the car . Rosario
did nothing to repudiate this act of violence to and
destruction of property.
On May 5 as a company supervisor of research
and development and a company industrial en-
gineer returned from lunch at 1 p.m . intending to
enter the office building , they were prevented from
doing so by a mass of 40 to 50 pickets confronting
them at the gate . The strikers stood in front of the
car, jolted it, yelled "Go home , go home," and
banged the car with their fists and picket signs
sticks. Finally the car backed up and left the
scene.
C. The Truck Incident
The Company planned to take a trailer load of
goods from the Finrico building to the San Juan air-
port on May 12 but decided not to do so because of
the number on the picket line and the fear someone
might get hurt . Instead it did so the following day.
On May 13 as the truckdriver was gassing up in
Cayey , two employees warned him that if he moved
the "truck " he would have to suffer the con-
541
sequences . As he entered the Finrico drive a female
striker wearing pants told him that on the strength
of her pants he would not go out.
The driver regularly made the 44 -mile run to the
San Juan airport and it usually took him 1-1 /2
hours or less depending on traffic conditions. On
May 13 it took 3 hours, from 9 a . m. to noon.
As the truck left the Finrico building the police
had to open up the 40 to 50 massed pickets so the
truck could move . Huegel jumped onto the left
running board and rode to a main intersection,
beating on the driver 's window and shouting, "Stop
the truck ." He shook his finger at the driver. As he
jumped off the truck4 he said to the company su-
pervisors in the next car behind the truck , " You've
had it now , we're going to get you ." At least a half-
dozen striker and union cars followed the truck, in
which were Huegel , Rosario, Bonilla, Jorge Her-
nandez, and others.
The road to San Juan is a dangerous mountain
road under the best of driving conditions . On this
occasion the danger was greatly augmented by the
harassing tactics of the strikers and Huegel. The su-
pervisor riding alongside the driver in the truck
credibly testified that " It's a pretty rough road and
the driver was very uncomfortable. He was afraid
we might fall off the cliff." An identified striker
threw a stone from a passing pickup truckload of
strikers, which broke the glass on the driver's left
and sprayed glass on the laps of the driver and the
supervisor . An identified striker threw a bottle at
the truck as it passed a gasoline station . Several
cars zig -zagged on the road in front of the truck,
during which several cars passed it . Loudspeakers
on one car were shouting vulgar epithets. One of
the cars was driven by the chairman of the picket-
ing committee , Jorge Hernandez . A car or truck
passing the truck tried to edge if off the road. A car
actually sideswiped the left front fender of the su-
pervisor 's car just behind the truck . From another
identified striker 's car nails or tacks were thrown.
Huegel 's car somehow moved to just behind the
truck and as the truck and Huegel stopped for a red
light two strikers from Huegel's car got out and un-
tied the ropes which held the tailgate of the truck in
place, thereby tending to cause the load to fall off.
Finally , the . truck stopped by a policeman.
Huegel also stopped and , according to the credited
testimony of Supervisor Rios , who was riding in the
truck, Huegel told the policeman that he , Huegel,
was an executive of the Company . Although Huegel
denied this Huegel was not an entirely credible wit-
ness and his memory had convenient lapses . For in-
stance he did not remember that he had given a
Board agent a pretrial affidavit under oath; and he
did not remember whether the policeman "took
him in," something which , it seems to me, would be
easy to remember if it happened. With police pro-
tection the truckload reached the airport without
further incident.
4 His pretrial affidavit falsely said he was pushed off
542 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
Huegel testified he followed the truck to make
certain there would be no problems. His own ac-
tions on that trip belie this testimony. Another as-
serted reason was to learn the destination of the
goods, to be able to inform the receivers of the
goods that it was struck work and ask them not to
receive any more goods. This might have been a
proper mission for one car but it surely did not
require six carloads of strikers (including all the
strike leaders) and the dangerous tactics they in-
dulged in. The entire record proved, and I find, that
he and the other strike leaders and strikers pursued
the truck and harassed it in furtherance of the
Union's policy of winning the strike and gaining
bargaining rights from the Company.
D. Events of May 19
On May 19 the Company tried to get the plants
in operation again by having supervisors drive to
the plants the employees who wanted to work.
Respondent Union thought of it as a "back-to-work
movement," and opposed it with mass picketing,
blocking, threats, vulgar and abusive language, and
violence.
Overwhelming credible and uncontradicted
evidence proved that several carloads of employees
and/or supervisors trying to enter several of the
plants were prevented from getting in until police
opened up the 40 to 50 massed pickets. Meantime
the massed pickets swarmed over the cars and
rocked the cars as though to overturn them. They
hit them with the sticks of their picket signs and
their fists and their umbrellas. At least one car was
dented. They jumped on the cars and shook them.
In at least one instance the chairman of the picket
committee, Jorge Hernandez, opened the door of a
car and tried to pull an occupant out. In one in-
stance some pickets got on top of the car. The
pickets called the occupants filthy names. They
threatened one car as it entered a gate that it would
not come out.
Early that morning one car passed a heavily
blocked gate and turned in at another gate which
was not heavily picket. As the occupants were un-
loading, a large stone hit the top of the car, coming
within inches of entering it. As the car exited a
large crowd which included Union Representative
Huegel blocked the exit. Huegel approached the
car and talked abusively and very vulgarly to the
driver. Then Huegel made an opening motion with
his hand and arm and the pickets dispersed, allow-
ing the car to pass through.
Early that morning Peter Huegel's wife, who was
among a mass of 40 or 50 pickets at one gate,
assisted in preventing the entrance of a car by
standing in front of the car with her hands spread
out on the car, and by almost draping herself over
the hood of the car. Then Mrs. Huegel either inten-
tionally or unintentionally fell down to the ground
and was on the ground close to the left front wheel
of the car. A policeman picked her up In order to
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
avoid problems and violence the driver of the car
abandoned his effort to enter and drove away.
Shortly thereafter Mr. and Mrs. Huegel and the
driver of the car were at the police station "testify-
ing" about the incident. No charges were filed.
Also early that morning, probably prior to the
above incident, Mrs. Huegel tried to prevent a com-
pany car from leaving a gate by walking back and
forth in front of it with her arms crossed. When a
policeman touched her elbow she said, "Don't
touch." This is all the record reveals of this in-
cident.
Later that morning as President Malcolm Cor-
don's secretary and a supervisor were walking
across the street in front of the tent towards the of-
fice building, an identified striker hit the secretary
in the back and called her filthy and demeaning
names, and the pickets threatened to remove her
clothes and deliver her naked to the office. The su-
pervisor was hit by a piece of wood and by fists on
the shoulder, the side, the face, and elsewhere The
pickets ran after him and kept hitting. The provoca-
tion for this assault was that the secretary and su-
pervisor had taken some coffee to people in the
building they were leaving. During all of this Union
Organizer Manuel Rosario was in the tent watching
the scene and he made no move to stop or control
what was going on or to disavow the Union's
responsibility for it after it ended.
That morning presumably after Mrs. Huegel had
been on the ground close to the car, Peter Huegel
arrived running up to President Malcolm Gordon,
who was talking to a crowd of strikers. Excitedly
Huegel, said to Gordon, in the presence of the
strikers, "I'll kill you. If they hurt a hair on my
wife's head I will hold you personally responsible
I'll kill you. I'll kill you." Gordon took this threat
seriously and so evidently did the strikers, for some
of the strikers took Huegel away from the scene.
Although Huegel denied making the threat to kill
and admitted only that he told Gordon he would
hold him responsible, I credit the credible witnesses
Lawrence T. Anderson, Malcolm Gordon, and Luis
Rosario that Huegel did utter the threat to kill.
E. Responsibility of the Union for the Acts of
Huegel , Rosario, Bonilla, and Hernandez , and the
Pickets Generally
All the circumstances herein proved that the
Union's policy was to assist the strikers by gaining
and keeping control of the strike and wresting ex-
clusive bargaining rights from the Company. As its
organizing time was extremely short, its policy was
to convince the strikers quickly that in solidarity
there is strength, that by maintaining the unity of
the pickets and the strength of the strike the objec-
tive of recognition could be achieved. As has been
seen above, an oral demand was made on May I
and the petition filed May 2. At all times thereafter
the Union was seeking recognition or an election.
SINDICATO PUERTORRIQUENO DE TRABAJADORES
The record proved that Huegel and Rosario had
general authority from the Union to carry out the
Union's policy. Huegel was at the scene of the
strike as much as he could be, consistent with prior
obligations. He was on the scene nearly every day.
Huegel admitted "working very closely in coordina-
tion with the committees" to "maintain control"
and "to set responsibilities and leadership " He ad-
mitted that his "purpose was to ... provide some
type of leadership." The entire record proved that
he was known as "the American," and was the
acknowledged leader of the strike. Rosario ad-
mitted that he was in the area of the strike every
day beginning at 5 o'clock in the morning, and that
he was "in charge of all the plants." He helped
select the "volunteers" to man the committees.
In the exercise of their general authority from the
Union, within hours after they had arrived on the
strike scene, Huegel and Rosario were attempting
with oral and written demands or requests to gain
recognition. On some occasion prior to May 19, in
front of a burning company building, Huegel asked
President Gordon if he would recognize the Union
now. Sometime between the filing of the charge on
May 5 and May 20 Huegel went to the Board's Re-
gional Office and protested letting the charge block
the election.
Through Huegel and Rosario, Felix Bonilla and
Jorge Hernandez also had authority to carry out the
Union's policies. As Huegel and Rosario and the
Union took over, Bonilla, the original employee
spokesman for the strikers, was kept on as pre-
sident of the original committee. Bonilla spent
much time during the strike in a car with a loud-
speaker, giving instructions to pickets. Hernandez
was put in charge of all the pickets under Rosario,
and Hernandez appointed persons to supervise the
strikers at each company gate.
The record proved further that Huegel, Rosario,
Bonilla, and Hernandez were participants in most
of the incidents closely scrutinized in the record
and set forth above, and that their acts were within
the scope of their employment. They were present
during the mass picketing and blocking and
episodes of violence growing out of the mass
picketing and blocking on May 5 and 19, and all of
them were in the vehicles which harassed the truck
on May 13. They condoned and did not repudiate
the strikers' activities. This massed picketing and
blocking and violence foreseeably grew out of the
Union's forced drive to take over the strike and
gain recognition quickly without the usual opportu-
nity for an educational campaign. The massed
picketing and blocking and violence foreseeably
grew out of the Union's quickly imposed policy of
solidarity and strength. Despite Huegel's general-
ized testimony that he counseled peace and
restraint and nonviolence to the strikers, he
unquestionably condoned the mass picketing and
`Compare Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Helpers and Taxicab Drivers, Local
Union 327 (Hartmann Luggage Company ), 173 NLRB 220, International
Woodworkers of America , Local Union 303, AFL-CIO, 144 NLRB 912,
543
blocking of the pickets and in the presence of
strikers threatened to kill the president of the Com-
pany. In the presence of pickets he talked abusively
and vulgarly to drivers of cars trying to enter and
exit. On the trip to San Juan behind the truck he
shook his fist at a company superintendent,
threatened to "get" the superintendent or the Com-
pany, and drove the strikers who untied the truck's
tailgate with the obvious intent of causing the load
to spill out. Huegel admittedly had great power in
the situation, for the massed pickets opened up and
let cars through when he gave the signal. He
testified that by a gesture he indicated to the
pickets to open up "in every case that I was there."
If he had the power in the situation to open up the
massed pickets, which the record proved he had
and which he admitted, then he also had the power
to prevent the mass picketing and blocking if that is
what he and the Union intended to do. Instead he
and the Union accepted, condoned, and impliedly
ratified these actions in an effort to gain recogni-
tion or an election.
Rosario supervised all the committees of the
strike and the pickets. He was in the strike area on
May 5 and participated in or witnessed without
condemning several of the specific incidents of that
day, as has been seen above. He did not try to
prevent or control the roughing up of the super-
visor and President Gordon's secretary, which oc-
curred in front of him on May 19.
Felix Bonilla, the original strike leader who
became a leader for the Union, was one of a
number of strikers who, on May 19, with their cars
forced an employee to stop his car shortly after he
left his home on May 19, their purpose being to
persuade him not to go to work or take others to
work. He participated in making the demands upon
the Company for recognition.
Jorge Hernandez, the picket captain, participated
in making the demands upon the Company, drove a
car following the truck on May 13, and tried to pull
a female supervisor out of a car on May 5.
As Huegel, Rosario, Bonilla, and Hernandez were
acting within the scope of their authority I conclude
that the Union was responsible for the unlawful
strike activities engaged in by them, and by the
pickets following their lead whose actions were
condoned or impliedly ratified by them, including
the mass picketing of gates and the blocking of in-
gress and egress at the gates, the occasional but by
no means isolated acts of violence to persons and
property, the harassment of the truckdriver on May
13, and Huegel's threat to kill Gordon. These in-
cidents and others reasonably tended to have a
coercing or restraining effect on workers and
strikers by deterring them from going to work or
abandoning the strike and returning to work. By
these acts and others Respondent Union violated
Section 8(b)(I )(A) of the Act,5 and interfered with
914, 915, Congreso de Uniones Industrailes de Puerto Rico, Ind , 163 NLRB
448,452
544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the exercise of a free and untrammeled choice by
the employees at the election. One of the fruits of
these acts may have been the Company's
willingness to enter into the consent-election agree-
ment on May 20.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent Union, set forth
in section III, above, occurring in connection with
the Company's operations described in section 1,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial rela-
tionship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow thereof.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. At all times material herein the Company has
been engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
3. By mass picketing and blocking of ingress and
egress at company entrances; by damaging and
threatening the damage of automobiles, trucks, and
other property entering or leaving company en-
trances; by throwing bottles at, injuring, or threaten-
ing physical violence to employees, supervisors, and
company officers; and by harassing, crowding,
delaying, throwing bottles and tacks or nails at and
interfering with a company truckdriver driving on
company business; in order to win a strike and gain
recognition as exclusive bargaining agent, Respon-
dent Union violated Section 8(b)( I )(A) of the Act.
V. THE REMEDY
To remedy its unfair labor practices I recom-
mend that Respondent Union cease and desist from
further commission of acts found herein to have
been a violation, and any like or similar acts.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law, and the entire record, I hereby recom-
mend that Respondent Sindicato Puertorriqueno de
Trabajadores affiliated with Amalgamated Meat
Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America,
fi In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions , recommendations , and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions , and order, and
all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event
that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court
of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na-
AFL-CIO, its officers , agents, and representatives,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Restraining or coercing the employees of the
Company by mass picketing and blocking of ingress
and egress at company entrances ; by damaging and
threatening the damage of automobiles , trucks, and
other property entering or leaving company en-
trances; by throwing bottles at injuring or threaten-
ing physical violence to employees , supervisors, and
company officers ; and by harassing , crowding,
delaying , throwing bottles and tacks or nails at and
interfering with a company truckdriver driving on
company business ; in order to win a strike and gain
recognition as exclusive bargaining agent.
(b) In any like or similar manner restraining or
coercing the employees of the Company in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I
find necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its business office and meeting halls
in Cayey, if it has any , copies of the attached notice
marked " Appendix . 1 6 Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
24, after being duly signed by the Union 's official
representative , shall be posted by it immediately
upon receipt thereof , and be maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places , including all places where notices to mem-
bers are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Union to insure that said notices
are not altered , defaced , or covered by any other
material.
(b) Mail signed copies of the notice to the Re-
gional Director for Region 24 for posting by the
Company , said Company willing , at all places
where notices to the Company 's employees are
customarily, posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 24,
in writing , within 20 days from the receipt of this
Decision , what steps have been taken to comply
herewith.7
RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE
REPRESENTATION CASE
1. The election of June 12, 1969, was held from
9 a.m. to 2 p.m. The evening before, some 14 hours
before the election began, the Union broadcast the
remarks of some nine persons over the local Cayey
radio station, beginning about 6:30 p.m. and con-
tinuing until about 8 p.m. In his remarks the pre-
sident of the Union made material and substantial
tional Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
' In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read " Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith "
SINDICATO PUERTORRIQUENO DE TRABAJADORES 545
misrepresentations of fact. In the context of
describing Gordonshire Knitting Mills, Inc., and its
"subsidiaries" in the Continental United States and
what it paid its workers in its "other plants" he re-
lated the wages ("he pays"), hours, holidays, and
vacations of a non-Gordonshire plant in Pennsyl-
vania as though it were a Gordonshire plant, all of
these working conditions being considerably superi-
or to those of the company's employees in Cayey.
2. Two or three days prior to the election a Civic
Mediation Committee of Cayey mailed to em-
ployees from a mailing list of employees supplied
by the Company, the following message, signed by
four members:
ADVICE OF THE CIVIC MEDIATION
COMMITTEE
This Committee favors the establishment of
labor unions for the well-being of the worker in
general.
Worker of Cayey, think first, above all, of
Cayey, of you and your family.
If you believe that this Union, if it wins the
election , will bring about better working condi-
tions and better salaries without prejudice to
new industries coming to Cayey, vote for the
Union.
If you believe that this Union may be the
cause of eliminating industries already
established and of discouraging new ones,
don't vote with this Union.
We are only worried that because of private
interests of the Union or of the company the
general interest of Cayey and its industrial
development may be jeopardized, which
development is more important than the
parties in controversy.
Cayey needs the Gordonshire plant and the
well-being of the workers of this plant. Think
carefully in making this decision.
This committee set upon itself the policy of
seeing that the treatment and the working con-
ditions of the workers will be the most fair and
favorable.
s/ Father Martin s/ Rev . Dionisio
Crespo
FATHER MARTIN REV. DENNIS
CRESPO
s/ Liberto Ramos s/ Jose Benet, Jr.
LIBERTO RAMOS JOSE BENET, JR.
The following day the Civic Mediation Commit-
tee mailed employees a "clarification " reading as
follows:
CLARIFICATION TO THE WORKERS OF
GORDON
The leaders of the proposed Union for Gor-
don have interpreted the leaflet published by
us as a leaflet favoring the position of the em-
ployer.
We wish to clarify to the employees of Gor-
don that we are only worried about the well-
being of the whole of Cayey and that, since
these employees are part of Cayey, we also
worry about their well-being.
We are all aware that the labor movement in
Puerto Rico has been one among the many fac-
tors to achieve the progress that is enjoyed in
Puerto Rico
We are neither with the employer nor with
the Union. We are here to see that good un-
derstanding exists between you all and the
company.
The existence of unions and collective bar-
gaining agreements in Puerto Rican industry is
a reality accepted by employers, workers and
the people in general . We also agree that this is
so.
s/ Father Martin s/ Rev. Dennis
Crespo
FATHER MARTIN REV. DENNIS
CRESPO
s/ Liberto Ramos s/ Jose Benet, Jr.
LIBERTO RAMOS JOSE BENET, JR.
The parties stipulated that s substantial number
of employees received these messages either by
mail or personally from other employees. Once the
evening before the election and twice on the morn-
ing of the election prior to the opening of the polls,
the Union paid for a radio announcement over the
local Cayey radio station, which was made as a
public announcement. This announcement began as
follows: "Father Martin, the Rev. Dennis Crespo,
and the Messrs. Heriberto Ramos and Pepe Benet
have made the following statements by virtue of the
elections that will be held at Gordonshire. The
committee states the following and we quote." The
broadcast then misrepresented the position of the
Civic Mediation Committee by quoting three para-
graphs favorable to the Union and nothing else con-
cerning the committee's position. Thus the broad-
cast then quoted the first paragraph of the Civic
Mediation Committee's first message and the third
and fifth paragraphs of the Committee's second
message . The broadcast then said, "Fellow workers
these are the quotes from the mediation committee:
Fellow worker, fellow citizen, vote for the union
and all vote under the yes. Only one cross under
the yes. Announcement paid by Sindicato Puertor-
riqueno de Trabajadores."
3. The above two misrepresentations of fact
were made sufficiently close to the election as to
prevent the Company and the Civic Mediation
Committee from making an effective reply, and
under all the circumstances may reasonably have
had a significant impact upon the minds of the
voters and the outcome of the election. Cf. Hol-
lywood Ceramics Company, 140 NLRB 221 (1962);
Jeffrey Mfg. Co., 71 LRRM 1589 (1969).
4. In view of the above misrepresentations, and
the unfair labor practices found above which inter-
fered with the exercise of a free and untrammeled
546 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
choice by the employees at the election, I recom-
mend that the election of June 12, 1969, be set
aside and that the Regional Director conduct a new
election at such time as, in his judgment , the effects
of the unfair labor practices and the misrepresenta-
tions have been dissipated.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT engage in mass picketing and
blocking of ingress and egress at company en-
trances.
WE WILL NOT damage or threaten to damage
automobiles, trucks, and other property enter-
ing or leaving company entrances.
WE WILL NOT throw bottles at or injure or
threaten physical violence to employees, super-
visors, or company officers.
WE WILL NOT harass or crowd on the
highway or cause the delay of or throw bottles
or tacks or nails at or in any way interfere with
a company truckdriver driving on company
business.
WE WILL NOT in any like or similar manner
restrain or coerce employees of Gordonshire
Knitting Mills , Inc., or any of its affiliated com-
panies, in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
SINDICATO
PUERTORRIQUENO DE
TRABAJADORES AFFILIATED
WITH AMALGAMATED
MEAT CUTTERS &
BUTCHER WORKMEN OF
NORTH AMERICA,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board 's Office, Seventh Floor, Pan Am Building,
255 Ponce de Leon Avenue , Hato Rey, Puerto Rico
00919, Telephone 809-765-0404.