Union de Trabajadores

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 13, 1969

174 N.L.R.B. 489 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

UNION DE TRABAJADORES
Union dle Trabajadores Industriales de Puerto Rico,
Inc., and its Agents Comite Pro-Rescate Operarias
de la Industria de Aguja , David Munoz Vazquez
and Angelica Gonzales and Bali, P.R., Inc., Bali
Foundations , Inc., Newport Brassiere Co., Inc.,
and Bow Bra Co ., Inc., and Puerto Rico Corset
and Brassiere Association and International
Ladies' Garment Workers Union and Local 600,
Intervenor . Cases 24-CP-22, 24-CB-638, and
24-CF'-23
February 13, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND JENKINS
On August 27, 1968, Trial Examiner William W.
Kapell issued his Decision in the above-entitled case,
finding that the Respondents had engaged in certain
unfair labor practices within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and
recommending that they cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter,
the Respondents, except for the Comite, filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, and
one of the Charging Parties filed cross-exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National 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 exceptions, and the entire
record in this case, and hereby adopts the finding,,
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
orders that Respondent, Union De Trabajadores
Industriales De Puerto Rico, Inc., its officers,
agents, and representatives, including Comite
Pro-Rescate Operarias De La Industria De Aguja,
David Munoz Vazquez and Angelica Gonzales, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order.
489
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE'
WILLIAM W. KAPELL, Trial Examiner. This matter, a
proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act, was
heard at Hato Rey, Puerto Rico, from May 6 to 14, 1968,'
inclusive, with all parties participating, except Comite
Pro-Rescate Operarias De La Industria De Aguja,3
pursuant to due notice on a consolidated complaint issued
by the General Counsel on March 15.' The complaint, as
amended, in substance, alleges that Respondents have
engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (B) and 7(A) of the Act. Respondents,
other than Comite which defaulted in answering, denied
the commission of any unfair labor practices, and
affirmatively pleaded that the Act is not applicable to
Puerto Rico.
All parties except the defaulting Comite were
represented and afforded opportunity to adduce evidence,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to file briefs.
Briefs were received from Charging Parties
Bali-Newport-Bow and the represented Respondents, and
have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record in
the cases, and from my observation of the witnesses I
make the following 5
1. COMMERCE
Bali-Newport-Bow, Puerto Rico Corporations, are
engaged in the business of manufacturing brassieres and
are owned by Bali Company, a public holding
corporation. The four corporations have the same general
and assistant general managers , are located in two
buildings, one in back of the other, and operate as an
integrated enterprise. Bali, P.R., Inc., and Bali
Foundations, Inc , occupy one building, while Newport
Brassiere Co., Inc , and Bow Bra Co., Inc., occupy the
other building. During the year prior to the hearing
herein, said corporations purchased materials worth in
excess of $1 million from sources located outside of
Puerto Rico, and during the same period sold,
manufactured, or finished goods worth in excess of $1
million to purchasers located outside of Puerto Rico. I
find that at all times material herein, said corporations
were engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
'The caption of the cases has been amended to conform to an order
issued by the Regional Director on January 23, 1968, granting the
unopposed motion of International Ladies' Garment Workers Union and
Local 600 (hereinafter referred to as ILG ) to intervene
'All dates hereafter refer to the year 1968 unless otherwise noted
'Hereafter referred to as Comite
'Based upon an original charge filed in Case 24-CP-22 on January 26
and two amended charges by Bali, P .R Inc, Bali Foundations, Inc
Newport Brassiere Co, Inc., and Bow Bra Co ., Inc., hereinafter
collectively referred to as Bali-Newport -Bow, an original charge filed in
Case 24-CB-638, on January 26, and two amended charges filed by
Bali-Newport- Bow; and a charge in Case 24-CP-23 filed February 1, by
Puerto Rico Corset and Brassiere Association, hereafter called the
Association Affidavits of service of the complaint indicate that service was
made on Union De Trabajadores Industriales De Puerto Rico, Inc.,
referred to herein as Respondent Union, and its agents David Munoz
Vazquez, Angelica Gonzales , and Comite Service on Comite was made on
its agents Carmen Falcon , Antonia Perez, and Angelica Gonzales An
answer was filed only on behalf of Respondent Union, David Munoz
Vazquez and Angelica Gonzales
'General Counsel's motion for summary judgment against Comite for
its default in answering , and on which decision was reserved during the
hearing, is disposed of in accordance with the findings made hereafter
174 NLRB No. 78
490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Respondents admit, and I find, that at all times
material herein Respondent Union and ILG were labor
organizations within the meaning of the Act.
HI. THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS
A. Background
The Association, a multiemployer group consisting of
about 80 manufacturers in the needle craft industry in
Puerto Rico, including Bali-Newport-Bow, Carolina
Brassiere , Inc., Exquisite Form Industries, and
Undergarment Accessories, Inc., represents its members,
inter alia , in negotiating, executing, and administering
collective-bargaining contracts covering the production
and maintenance employees of its members on an
associationwide basis. These employees for the past
several years have been covered by collective-bargaining
contracts executed by the Association with ILG, the last
of which prior to 1968 was executed on February 1, 1965,
and due to expire on January 31, 1968.6
B. Respondent Union's Organizing Campaign
During the early fall of 1967 Respondent Union began
an organizational campaign in the needle craft industry in
the metropolitan area of San Juan, Puerto Rico, among
the production and maintenance employees of several
members of the Association, including Bali-Newport-Bow;
Exquisite Form Industries, Puerto Rico Branch, Inc.;
Carolina Brassiere Co., Inc.; and Undergarment
Accessories, Inc. Campaign literature was distributed,
meetings were held with groups of employees, and union
authorization cards were solicited and collected.
Respondent Union pointedly emphasized the advantages
of the terms and conditions of employment of its members
in its collective- bargaining contracts, especially its medical
insurance plan, sick leave, and holidays, as compared with
the terms and conditions of employment of the employees
covered by the Association contract with ILG, and
accused the ILG of neglecting the welfare and interest of
its members and of being proemployer. About 2 weeks
after the organizational campaign began at
Bali-Newport-Bow, a group of employees was organized
as a committee , and met at least once with David Munoz
Vazquez? at his office. By letter of November 9, 1967,
Respondent Union advised the Regional Office of the
Board that it had appointed an organizing committee at
Bali-Newport-Bows The committee met about twice a
month at the home of a member. Angelica Gonzales acted
as spokesman for the committee on at least one meeting.
At a meeting held a few days before January 23, it was
decided to strike Bali-Newport-Bow on January 23. David
Munoz, who also attended the meeting, advised the
members that he would support them in any work
stoppage.
About the time Bali-Newport-Bow was struck on
January 23, a new committee of employees was organized
'Bali Foundations , Inc (one of the Bali-Newport-Bow Corporations) was
organized in 1967 prior to the dispute herein and became a member of the
Association at that time subject to the ILG contract with the Association
'The general secretary and top official of Respondent Union
'The committee was identified as consisting of Angelica Gonzales, Luz
Maria Garcia , Aida L. Matos , Antonia Perez, Ennqueta Dias, Carmen
Falcon, Antonia Dominguez , Rafaela Figueroa , Carmen Rita Rosado,
Pilar Calderon , Maria Valazquez , and Angie Figueroa.
and called the Comite.' Angelica Gonzales, who assisted
in organizing the first committee, became one of the
leaders of the Comite, other members were Carmen
Falcon, Luz Maria Falcon, Ida Luz Matos, Sylvia Ortez,
Dominga Rosario, Angie Figueroa, Rafaela Figueroa,
Maria Teresa Lopez, Pilar Calderon, Eugenia Santana,
Julia Agosta and Fermina Santiago, a group substantially
similar to the membership of the first committee.
During the organizing campaign Respondent Union
filed seven R petitions for certification, one of which
covered the employees at Bali-Newport-Bow and each of
the other six petitions covered the employees of another
Association member. These petitions were withdrawn
upon advice of the Regional Office because the separate
bargaining units sought were inappropriate in view of the
Associationwide bargaining history. On December 1, 1967,
Respondent Union filed a new R petition for all the
production and maintenance employees of the Association
members.10 On December 15, 1967, the Regional Director
dismissed this petition for failure, to submit sufficient
employee-signatures designating the petitioning Union as
their bargaining representative. On December 22, 1967,
the Respondent Union in a communication to the
employees stated that its R petition filed on December 1
had been dismissed for failure to establish the required
union support, a finding disputed by Respondent Union,
and it threatened to strike the entire needlework industry
in Puerto Rico unless the employees obtained their
guaranteed rights. On December 25, 1967, Respondent
Union requested Board review of the Regional Director's
dismissal of its petition. On January 8, 1968, while its
appeal to the Board on the dismissal of its R petition was
pending, Respondent Union stated in a press release and
on the radio that if the Board failed to grant it an election
pursuant to its R petition, there would be a general work
stoppage in the industry. On January 16 the Board
dismissed Respondent Union's appeal, and thereafter on
January 26 Respondent Union requested reconsideration
by the Board, which was also denied on February 13,
1968.
The Association and ILG began negotiating for a
renewal contract in November 1967, which was completed
in January at which time a new contract was executed for
a term of 3 years beginning on February 1.
1. The strike activities at Bali-Newport-Bow
Picketing began on January 23 at Bali-Newport-Bow
with signs reading: "Do not cross the picket line," "We
want elections ," and "We do not want the ILGWU."
These signs remained for the first 24 hours and thereafter
were changed to read "This is a general strike ," and the
picketing continued to February 2. The plants remained
open on January 23, 24, 26, 29, and thereafter. On
January 23, the pickets were urging the employees not to
enter the factories , and were physically blocking those
who attempted to do so Among the pickets were Carmen
Falcon, Luz Maria Falcon, Dominga Rosario, Maria
'The evidence is vague as to the exact time of its creation The General
Counsel in his summation stated that there is no evidence indicating that
Comite came into being prior to the strike
"Section 9(c)(i)(A) of the Act provides that the Board will investigate an
election petition filed by a union when it alleges that "a substantial number
of employees wish to be represented for collective bargaining and that their
employer declines to recognize their representative . " The Board will
only conduct an election on a union ' s petition if it "has been designated by
at least 30 percent of the employees." NLRB Statements of Procedure,
Series 8, as amended, Section 101.18(a)
UNION DE TRABAJADORES 491
Teresa Lopez, Fermina Santiago, and Sylvia Ortez who
stood at the entrance to the gate at Newport. Carmen
Falcon told Charles Benitez, the assistant general
manager, that two-thirds of the Bali employees were
working only because the pickets at that plant were
insufficiently trained but that the next day she would be
there and make sure that no one would be able to enter.
At the driveway to the building Fermina Santiago kneeled
in front of cars attempting to enter and Dominga Rosario,
Delores Perez, and Donna Antonia also blocked cars
trying to enter and threatened to break their windows. A
delivery truck from Sealand Company turned back after
strikers kneeled in front of the truck obstructing its entry.
About 30 out of the 450 employees entered Newport on
January 23, and 375 out of 500 entered Bali. Sylvia Ortez,
Angelica Gonzales, Maria Lopez, and Dominga Rosario
also spoke over the loudspeaker urging the employees not
to enter and stating that they would not be permitted to
do so, and that the strike was called because they wanted
an election and for Bali-Newport-Bow to leave the
Association.
On January 24, 60 to 100 people were on the picket line
blocking the entrance of employees at the Bali gate.
Maria Gonzales was seen hitting employees attempting to
enter and Pilar Calderon and Natalia Ramos threw eggs
through the balcony of Bali and also hit the police captain
on duty. On January 24 or 25, Angelica Gonzales tore the
blouse off and pinched employee Vicenta Torres trying to
enter Bali. Pickets Ramos, Calderon, Matos, and Carmen
Falcon kept shouting on the picket line that the girls who
attempted to enter the plant would do so without their
clothing. Beginning on the second week of the strike,
pickets Calderon, Ramos, Izabel Hernandez, Rosario,
Reyes, Carmen Falcon, and Fermina Santiago were seen
pulling the hair and arms of employees who attempted to
enter the plant Employee Margareta Pizarro was engulfed
by pickets and when she emerged her dress had been torn
off. Several arrests were made including Perez, Carmen
Falcon, and Fermina Santiago. On several occasions on
January 29, female employees attempting to cross the
picket lines had part of their clothing torn off.
Guillermania Castro, an ILG representative, was struck
on the head with a picket sign requiring eight stitches. On
February 2, employee Sol Perez was hit by a picket sign
wielded by a picket when he came out of the plant and the
picket was then arrested."
On January 24 while the strike was in progress at
Bali-Newport-Bow several members of the Comite
including Angelica Gonzales, met with Mike Stein,
president of the Bali Company, and Frank Irizarry and
Charles Benitez, the manager and assistant general
manager, respectively, of Bali-Newport-Bow. Angelica
Gonzales stated that the strikers wanted an election
because they were dissatisfied with ILG, and that the
work stoppage was initiated to ascertain whether an
election could be accelerated or whether Stein would drop
out as a member of the Association. At a later meeting
'The above findings are based upon the credited composite testimony of
Angelica Gonzales and Assistant Manager Charles Benitez. Employee
Zoila M. Gonzales De Rodrigues testified that she was restrained by two
strikers from entering Bali on December 23, and her blouse was torn off
on January 29 when she tried to enter the plant; employee Carmen Luz
Rivera testified that she was scratched on the arm upon entering the plant
on January 23; Gloria Laura De Rivera testified that she was struck on
the shoulder by a -picket sign wielded by a picket when she entered the
plant after being told not to; and it was stipulated that if Anna Rodriquez
and Celiac Jordan were called to testify they would state that they were
assaulted by strikers on January 29 while attempting to enter the plant.
that day, about 1 p.m., with Irizarry and Benitez,
Angelica Gonzales proposed that an employee grievance
committee be recognized by management at each of its
plants, and that ILG stewards be ignored.' Z An hour later
she informed Stein that the employees would not agree to
her proposal. About 4 p.m. the same day, she and a
number of Comite members met with Stein and requested
that an election be held or that they work without a
union. Stein replied that he could not drop out of the
Association or do anything about an election. The
following day, January 25, in a meeting at the Tastee
Freeze Restaurant, located near the Bali-Newport-Bow
plants, David Munoz asked Angelica Gonzales how
everything was going." On January 25 and 26 David
Munoz was seen in the vicinity of Bali-Newport-Bow, and
on January 28 Vicente Fradero'" and Gregario Davila"
were also seen near the plants. Photographs admitted in
evidence, taken on January 30 and 31 at
Bali-Newport-Bow, and on February 1 show individuals
identified as Gregario Davila, Jose Perez, Angel Luis
Ayala,is and David Munoz participating in the strike
activities at those plants.
Rosendo Figueroa Martinez testified on behalf of the
General Counsel that he worked as an organizer for
Respondent Union beginning in December and until
February 26, and that he was hired by Frank Munoz
Vazquez." At first he distributed union literature at
various brassiere plants, including Bali-Newport-Bow,
collected union authorization cards, and spoke over
loudspeakers. He was transported from plant to plant in a
union car usually accompanied by one or two Respondent
Union officials such as David Munoz, Gregario Davila,
Angel Luis Ayala, Vicente Fradera, Frank Munoz (a
brother of David Munoz), or Perez. When the strike
began he and union officials were taken by a car to a
cafeteria near Bali-Newport-Bow where he received
reports from the pickets and union officials and
transmitted them by telephone to Respondent Union's
secretaries Maritza or Lourdes. He also heard David
Munoz deliver a speech over the loudspeaker on January
30 at Bali-Newport-Bow, and was directed by Munoz to
state when he spoke over the loudspeaker that Respondent
Union supported the pickets. Also, on instructions from
Munoz he hired nonemployee pickets for picket duty at
Bali-Newport-Bow.
2. The organizing campaign and strike at Carolina
Brassiere Co.
From October to the end of January 1968 Jose Perez
and Angel Luis Ayala appeared at the Carolina plant and
spoke over the loudspeaker asking the employees to join
Respondent Union, which they represented, and to get rid
of the ILG. On January 23 Angelica Gonzales appeared
at the plant and after identifying herself said that she was
from Bali, where they had already struck, and that they
would support a strike at Carolina. Pickets appeared
carrying signs stating "Out with the ILGWU," and "We
want an election." On that day Perez also spoke over the
"According to the testimony of Sylvia Ortez, Stein made a somewhat
similar proposal to the strikers during the strike
"These findings are based upon the testimony of Angelica Gonzales.
"Secretary of minutes of Respondent Union.
"An organizer for Respondent Union.
"Jose Perez and Ayala were also organizers for Respondent Union.
"During the hearing, Respondent Counsel admitted that Martinez was
loaned by the Boilermakers Union to work for Respondent Union and
received instructions from David Munoz for a time.
492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
loudspeaker stating that he was from Respondent Union
and urged the employees to strike for an election. A
meeting was held shortly after the strike began between
General Manager David Stone of Carolina and three
strikers, of whom Carmen Carrasquillo was the
spokesman. She requested a change of union from ILG to
Respondent Union. Stone replied that he had a contract
with ILG, which was the recognized Union, and asked the
girls to go back to work. The girls refused but the next
day the factory reopened and the employees resumed
working.' °
3. The organizing campaign and strike at Exquisite
Form Industries
On January 23 Exquisite was struck. Striking
employees and Angelica Gonzales spoke over the
loudspeaker exhorting the employees to strike for free
elections because they did not want the ILG. Picket signs
were placed against the fence of the plant. However, many
of the employees ignored the strike and continued to
work. The next day the majority of the employees
returned to work.
During the previous few months several agents of
Respondent Union had solicited employees to sign
authorization cards at the plant. David Munoz had also
been seen several times at the plant during the organizing
campaign, and on December 28 or 29, 1967, in addressing
the employees over the loudspeaker he complained that
the petition filed by his Union had been unjustifiably
dismissed by the Board, and that they would have to
strike for their rights. Angelica Gonzales, who had also
appeared at the plant during the organizing campaign to
address the employees over the loudspeaker, had
demanded an election and had stated that they did not
want the ILG."
4. The strike at Undergarment Accessories
On January 29 Undergarment was struck. Pickets
appeared shouting that they did not want the ILG 'During
the day a meeting was held in the offices of the Company,
which was attended by its manager and lawyers,
representatives of ILG, and lawyers for the strikers. The
strikers stated at the meeting that they did not want the
ILG or its contract. On the following day, January 30,
Rosendo Figueroa Martinez was directed by David
Munoz to go to the Undergarment plant with picket signs
and was instructed to state that he was not from the
Respondent Union but belonged to the Comite. Following
his appearance at the plant he addressed the employees
over .the loudspeaker stating that they wanted an election
and did not want the ILG.20
C. The Issues
1. Whether Respondent Union and its agents in
violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act engaged in
strike activities at plants of Association members, which
restrained or coerced employees in the exercise of their
guaranteed rights in Section 7.
"The above findings are based on the uncontradicted testimony of Rosa
M. Lopez, an employee of Carolina, and David Stone
"The above findings are based upon the credited testimony of Felicita
Cruz Falcon, a business agent and organizer for ILG
30The above findings are based upon the uncontroverted testimony of
Felicita Cruz Falcon and Rosendo Figueroa Martinez.
2. Whether Respondent Union and its agents in
violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B) restrained or coerced
employer-members of the Association in the selection of
their bargaining representative for purposes of collective
bargaining.
3. Whether Respondent Union and its agents in
violation of Section 8(b)(7)(A) of the Act picketed
employer members of the Association for the purpose of
obtaining recognition at a time when no valid question of
representation could be raised and the employers had
already recognized ILG as the bargaining representative
of their employees.
D. Conclusions
1. The 8(b)(1)(A) violations
The General Counsel contends that the alleged
8(b)(1)(A) violations occurred only at Bali-Newport-Bow.
The incidents reflected in the record show that on the
picket line during the strike the pickets openly threatened
to physically restrain and prevent employees and cars
from entering the plant, and that in doing so several
employees were injured. Respondent counsel in his brief
concedes, that violence occurred on the picket line but
claims thatit was only of a minor nature. I find, however,
that the violence reached widespread proportions despite
the presence of the police, that several employees were
seriously injured, one of whom required eight stitches for
a head wound, and that several pickets and strikers were
arrested for assaulting nonstriking employees or
preventing cars from entering the plant.
The, General Counsel asserts that at all times material
herein Respondent Union through its officers and agents
fostered and sponsored the strike activities , at
Bali-Newport-Bow and the other struck plants, and
instructed, supervised, and coordinated the pickets and
strikers in their activities on the picket lines. Respondents
deny responsibility for those activities. The evidence
clearly establishes that Respondent Union conducted a
vigorous and forceful organizing campaign at
Bali-Newport-Bow and to a lesser extent at Carolina,
Exquisite Forms, and Undergarment. It also filed, an R
petition claiming support of at least 30 percent of the
employees. When the petition was dismissed for failure to
show sufficient support, it publicly threatened to strike the
Companies unless the Board reversed the Regional
Director's dismissal." Furthermore, the organizing
committee and its successor, the Comite, worked closely
with Respondent Union. Thus, David Munoz attended the
committee's meeting on January 21, when a general
stoppage was authorized, at which time he assured the
committee of his support. Thereafter, on January 25,
Munoz met with Angelica Gonzales and inquired how the
strike was going. Rosendo Figueroa Martinez testified
without contradiction that he was instructed by Munoz to
hire nonemployee pickets and that he did so, and that
during the strike pursuant to instructions he kept
Respondent Union apprised of strike developments from
the scene of such activities at Bali-Newport-Bow by
relaying messages from the pickets to Respondent Union's
secretaries by telephone. Also, during the strike at
Bali-Newport-Bow various officials of Respondent Union
were conspicuous in the vicinity, addressing the employees
over loudspeakers, some of whom counseled and urged the
strikers and pickets to block employees attempting to
"See G.C Exh. 5 - 22(a) and 23(a)
UNION DE TRABAJADORES
enter the plants. The record is completely barren of any
attempt by Respondent officials to restrain or moderate
the violent activities of the pickets or strikers. Nor did the
Respondent Union officials disavow or disclaim
responsibility for such activities.
The record also establishes that David Munoz
masterminded the organizing efforts of Respondent
Union, advised the Regional Office of the identity of the
organizing committee, promised his support of the strike,
appeared in the vicinity of and at Bali-Newport-Bow
during the strike, and addressed the employees in front of
the plant on one of these days. Finally, the record shows
that on February 8, following the termination of the
picketing on February 2 and the failure of the strike,
Fradera, an admitted organizer for Respondent Union,
told Benitez and Irizarry at a restaurant near
Bali-Newport-Bow that Respondent Union had left and
had nothing more to do with the strike, thereby in effect,
admitting its previous participation. The evidence,
especially the testimony of Angelica Gonzales, shows that
she was a leader both in the organizing committee and the
Comite, that she took a very active part in the violence
which occurred on the picket line during the strike, and
that she worked closely with Munoz. The evidence also
shows that Carmen Falcon, also a member of the' Comite,
participated in physically blocking employees from
entering the plant, and told Benitez on January 23, when
the Bali employees were successfully penetrating the
picket line, that on the following day she would be at that
line and would make sure that nobody would enter even if
she had to resort to violence to accomplish that end.
Antonia Perez, another member of Comite, was also one
of the pickets who blocked cars attempting to enter the
Bali-Newport-Bow plant by kneeling in the driveway.
In the light of the foregoing, I find that Respondent
Union, the Comite, Angelica Gonzales, and David Munoz
directed and participated in and are responsible for the
strike misconduct which occurred on the picket lines at
Bali-Newport-Bow. Moreover, even assuming the absence
of any direct evidence that any official or agent of
Respondent Union specifically directed the employees to
engage in the strike and picketing that would not be
determinative of Respondent Union's responsibility.
Circumstantial as well as direct evidence may be
considered' 21 in a realistic analysis of Respondent Union's
conduct. To contend here that the strikers were acting
independently in the exercise of their own free will and
initiative rather than carrying out Respondent Union's
policy is to overlook the basic fundamental realities of
industrial life. 1, therefore, find and conclude that
Respondents restrained and coerced employees in the
excercise of their statutory rights in violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. See, New Power Wire and Electric
Corp. v. N L.R.B , 340 F.2d 71, 72 (C.A. 2); Sunset Line
and Twine Company, 79 NLRB 1487, International
Woodworkers of America (W T. Smith Lumber Co.), 116
NLRB 507.
2. The violations of Section 8(b)(1)(B)
Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act proscribes labor
organizations or their agents from restraining or coercing
an employer in the selection of his bargaining
representative The record amply establishes that one of
the prime objects of Respondent Union and its agents was
to compel the involved employer-members of the
Association to sever their membership, thereby
"Local 25, IBEW (New York Telephone Company), 162 NLRB 703
493
withdrawing bargaining authority for the Association, and
to bargain individually with the Respondent Union. Direct
demands were made on these employers to achieve this
objective both during the organizing campaigns and the
strikes Inasmuch as I have found Respondent Union and
its agents David Munoz, Angelica Gonzales, and the
Comite responsible for the picketing, I accordingly,
conclude that they also violated Section 8(b)(l)(B) of the
Act. See International Union of Operating Engineers,
Local 825, AFL-CIO, and Peter Weber, its Business
Manager (Building Contractors Association of New
Jersey), 145 NLRB 952, 962.
3. The 8(b)(7)(A) violations
In order to establish that picketing is in violation of
Section 8(b)(7)(A), it must appear that the purpose of the
picketing is to secure recognition, that the employer is
lawfully recognizing a labor organization other than the
picketing group, and that at the time of the picketing a
question of representation may not be properly raised.
The General Counsel contends that he has satisfied all
three requirements. Respondents contend that the evidence
fails to establish any connection between the strikers and
Respondent Union, and that the picketing was neither
organizational nor recognitional and sought only an
election.
a The picketing
The facts and findings related above in connection with
the 8(b)(1)(A) violations establish that Respondent Union
and its agents were involved in and responsible for the
picketing.
b. The purpose of the picketing
"In determining whether picketing has recognition or
bargaining as an objective, the Board scrutinizes all
evidence in the case, including events which preceded as
well as those which accompany picketing."23
Although it does not appear that Respondent Union
specifically made a direct demand for recognitidn,24 the
evidence in its totality plainly reflects that Respondent
Union's ultimate objective was to supplant ILG as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the involved
employees. Thus, it engaged in a very energetic organizing
campaign over a period of several months,- extolling the
advantages and benefits of its members, filed R petitions,
and strongly attacked the ILG as a procompany union
unconcerned with and unresponsive to the welfare of its
members. It also demanded that the employer-members
withdraw from the Association so that they could bargain
individually with Respondent Union. The evidence, in
sum, provides a basis from which it can reasonably be
inferred that an object of the picketing was to obtain
recognition. To assume otherwise would not only be
unrealistic but naive.
"Local 345, Retail Store Employees Union (GEM of Syracuse), 145
NLRB 1168, 1172.
14I do not regard the abortive attempt by Angelica Gonzales to have
Bali-Newport-Bow recognize an employee committee to handle employee
grievances as a demand for recognition of Respondent Union. Nor do I
find that the request of striker, Carmen Carrasquillo, to the manager of
Carolina Brassiere for a change of union from ILG to Respondent Union
sufficient per se to attribute the request to Respondent Union.
494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
c. The Association's recognition of ILG .
The Board has taken the position that when an
employer recognizes a union and executes a
collective-bargaining agreement with it, a rebuttable
presumption arises that the union represents a majority of
the employees Shamrock Dairy, Inc., 119 NLRB 998,
1002, enfd. sub nom International Brotherhood of
Teamsters v. N.L.R.B., 280 F.2d 665 (C.A.D.C.), cert
denied 364 U.S. 892. The recurd amply shows that the
Association on behalf of its members has recognized ILG
for many years as the bargaining representative of the
employees of its members on an associationwide basis,
and that the Association and ILG have been parties to
collective-bargaining agreements prior to, during, and
after the picketing herein. No evidence was introduced
which would tend to show that ILG did not represent an
uncoerced majority of the employees in the appropriate
unit. Nor did Respondent Union establish that it
represented a majority of those employees.25 At most,
Respondent Union attempted to show that ILG was not
properly representing the employees involved herein, a
matter neither relevant nor material to the issue
d. The timing of the picketing
There remains only the question of whether the
picketing attributed to Respondent Union took place at a
time when it would be proper to raise a question of
representation . The uncontroverted record discloses that
there has been a history of collective bargaining on a
multiemployer basis between the Association and ILG
going back many years , during which collective -bargaining
contracts were negotiated binding the parties. The
picketing began herein at a time when such an agreement
was in full force and effect between the Association and
ILG. This agreement expired on January 31 and on
February 1 a renewal collective - bargaining agreement for
3 years went into effect following negotiations between the
parties pursuant to their arrangements However, the
picketing continued at Bali-Newport-Bow until February
2. The Board has held that effective collective -bargaining
agreements , such as the ones involved herein , constitute a
bar to the selection of an outside union as the bargaining
representative of the employees. 26
Based on the foregoing I find and conclude that
Respondent Union and its Agents David Munoz, Angelica
Gonzales, and the Comite violated Section 8 (b)(7)(A) by
the picketing of Association members as indicated
hereinabove , for the ultimate purpose of having
Respondent Union recognized as the collective-bargaining
representative of the employees of the Association
members.
4. The applicability of the Act to Puerto Rico
Respondent Union asserts that the Act has no
applicability to Puerto Rico. I find no merit in this
contention The Act was held applicable to
pre-Commonwealth Puerto Rico in N.L.R.B. v. Gonzalez
Padin Company, 161 F.2d 353, 354-355 (C.A. 1), and it
has also been held applicable to post-Commonwealth
"The Board, in fact, in affirming the dismissal of Respondent Union's R
petition by the Regional Director, found that the Respondent Union failed
to establish even a 30 percent support by the employees.
"See Local 3, International Brotherhood of,Electrical Workers (Darby
Electric Corporation), 153 NLRB 717, 723, and cases cited therein
Puerto Rico in Cosentino v. International Longshoremen's
Association JP.R Steamship Assn.J, 126 F. Supp. 420,
422 (D.C.P.R. San Juan Division). See also Xavier
Zequeira, 102 NLRB 874; Gorbea, Perez & Morell, S en
C., 133 NLRB 362, 366.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents, set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
Companies described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce among 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. Respondent Union and ILG are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. At,all times material herein Bali-Newport-Bow have
been integrated employers constituting a single enterprise
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
3, At all times material herein the Association, a
multiemployer association, has been the bargaining agent
of its members for the purpose, inter alia, of negotiating
and executing collective-bargaining contracts covering the
production and maintenance employees of its members on
an associationwide basis.
4. At all times material herein Bali-Newport-Bow,
Carolina Brassiere Co., Exquisite Form Industries, and
Undergarment Accessories, among others, have been
members of the Association.
5 At all times material herein, and for the past several
years, the production and maintenance employees of the
members of the Association have been covered by
collective-bargaining contracts executed by the Association
on their behalf with ILG as the bargaining representative
of their employees.
6. Respondents jointly and severally restrained and
coerced employees of Bali-Newport-Bow in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 in violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
7. Respondents jointly and severally restrained and
coerced employer-members of the Association in the
selection of their representative for the purpose of
collective-bargaining in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of
the Act.
8. By picketing or causing the picketing at the plants of
Bali-Newport-Bow, Carolina Brassiere, Exquisite Form,
and Undergarment Accessories with an object of forcing
or requiring those employers to recognize and bargain
with it as the collective-bargaining representative of their
employees, and with the further object of forcing or
requiring those employees to accept or select it as their
collective-bargaining representative, at a time when
Respondent Union was not currently certified as such
representative, the employers had lawfully recognized
another labor organization as the collective-bargaining
representative of its employees, and a question concerning
representation could not be raised under Section 9(c) of
the Act, the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(A) of the
Act.
UNION DE TRABAJADORES 495
9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have violated Section
8(b)(1)(A), (1)(B), and (7)(A) of the Act, I shall
recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
Although the findings herein show that Respondents
have engaged in violative conduct at the plants of a
relatively small number of Association -members, it is
evident that Respondent Union's avowed purpose is to
supplant the ILG as the bargaining representative of the
employees on an associationwide basis and/or to cause the
dissolution of the Association. I, therefore, shall
recommend that a broad form order be issued in order to
afford protection to all the members of the Associations as
well as those who were involved in violations.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact: and
conclusions of law, and the entire record, it is hereby
recommended that Respondent Union De Trabajadores
Industriales De Puerto Rico, Inc., and its agents Comite
Pro-Rescate Operarias De La Industria De Aguja, David
Munoz Vazquez and Angelica Gonzales, and its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns , shall-
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Restraining or coercing the employees of Bali, P.R.
Inc., Bali Foundations, Inc., Newport Brassiere Co., Inc.,
Bow Bra Co., Inc., or any other employer-member of
Puerto Rico Corset and Brassiere Association or the
employees of any other employer doing business with the
aforesaid Employers, by assaulting or threatening to
commit bodily harm on said employees, engaging in mass
picketing, blocking ingress or egress to the premises of the
aforesaid Employers, physically preventing supervisors,
employees, and others from entering the premises of the
aforesaid employers; or in any other manner restraining or
coercing the employees of the aforesaid Employers in the
exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
(b) In any manner restraining or coercing Bali, P.R.
Inc., Bali Foundations, Inc., Newport Brassiere Co., Inc.,
Bow Bra Co., Inc., Carolina Brassiere Co., Inc., Exquisite
Form Industries, Puerto Rico Branch, Inc., Undergarment
Accessories, Inc., or any other employer-member of
Puerto Rico Corset and Brassiere Association within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(l)(B) of the Act in the selection
or retention of that Association as their exclusive
representative for the purpose of collective bargaining.
(c) Picketing or threatening to picket the premises of
Bali, P.R., Inc., Bali Foundations, Inc., Newport
Brassiere Co., Inc., Bow Bra Co., Inc., Carolina Brassiere
Co., Inc., Exquisite Form Industries, Puerto Rico Branch,
Inc., Undergarment Accessories, Inc., or any
employer-member of Puerto Rico Corset and Brassiere
Association, where an object thereof is forcing or
requiring any of the aforesaid employers to recognize or
bargain with Respondent Union De Trabajadores
Industriales De Puerto Rico, Inc., as the
collective-bargaining representative of their employees, or
forcing or requiring said employees to select or accept
said Respondent as their collective-bargaining
representative, where said employers have lawfully
recognized in accordance with the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, International Ladies' Garment
Workers Union and Local 600, or any other labor
organization other than Respondent Union, and a
question concerning the representation of said employees
may not appropriately be raised under Section 9(c) of the
Act, unless said Respondent Union is then currently
certified as the collective-bargaining representative of the
employees of said employers.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its business office, meeting halls, and all
places where notices to its members are customarily
posted, copies27 of the attached- notice marked
"Appendix."" Copies of said notice, to be furnished by
the Regional Director for Region 24, shall, after being
duly signed by Respondents and/or their representatives,
be posted by Respondent Union immediately after receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to its members are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent 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 Regional
Director for Region 24 for posting, the Charging Parties
willing, at all locations where notices to their employees
are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 24, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Trial
Examiner's Decision, what steps Respondents have taken
to comply herewith.29
"In view of the fact that the employees involved here for the most part
are literate in Spanish only, the notices shall be posted both in English and
in Spanish
2"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice . In the further
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order."
"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
Respondents have taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
Notice to all Members of Union De Trabajadores
Industriales De Puerto Rico, Inc., and to all Members of
Comite Pro-Rescate Operarias De La Industria De Aguja
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce the employees of
Bali, P.R., Inc., Bali Foundations, Inc., Newport
Brassiere Co., Bow Bra Co., Inc., or any other
employer-member of Puerto Rico Corset and Brassiere
Association or the employees of any other employer
doing business with the aforesaid employers, by
assaulting or threatening to commit bodily harm on
said employees, engaging in mass picketing, blocking
ingress to or egress from the premises of the aforesaid
496 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employers, physically preventing supervisors,
employees, and others from entering the premises of the
aforesaid employers; or in any other manner restraining
or coercing the employees of the aforesaid employers in
the exercise of their statutory rights.
WE WILL NOT in any manner coerce or restrain Bali,
P.R., Inc., Bali Foundations, Inc., Newport Brassiere
Co., Inc., Bow Bra Co., Inc., Carolina Brassiere Co.,
Inc., Exquisite Form Industries, Puerto Rico Branch,
Inc., Undergarment Accessories, Inc., or any other
employer-member of Puerto Rico Corset and Brassiere
Association in the selection or retention of that
Association as their exclusive representative for the
purpose of collective bargaining.
WE WILL NOT picket or cause to be picketed or
threaten to picket Bali, P.R., Inc., Bali Foundations,
Inc., Newport Brassiere Co., Inc., Bow Bra Co., Inc.,
Carolina Brassiere Co., Inc., Exquisite Form Industries,
Undergarment Accessories, Inc., or any other
employer-member of Puerto Rico Corset and Brassiere
Association where an object thereof is to force or
require said Companies to recognize or bargain with
Union de Trabajadores Industriales de Puerto Rico,
Inc., as the representative of their employees, or to
force or require the employees of said' Companies to
„accept or select said Union as their
collective-bargaining representative, where said
Companies have lawfully recognized, in, accordance
with the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
International Ladies' Garment Workers Union and
Local 600, or any other labor organization, and a
question concerning representation of said employees
may not appropriately be raised under Section 9(c) of
the Act, unless Union de Trabajadores Industriales de
Puerto Rico, Inc., is then currently certified by the
National Labor Relations' Board as their representative.
UNION DE TRABAJADORES
INDUSTRIALES DE PUERTO
Rico, INC.
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
Dated By
Dated By
Dated" By
(Representative ) (Title)
CO MITE-PRO-RE SCATE
OPERARIAS DE LA
INDUSTRIA DE AGUJA
(Title)
DAVID MUNOZ VAZQUEZ
/s/
ANGELICA GONZALES
/s/
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting, and must, not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
If members have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions,, they may communicate
directly with the Board's, Regional Office, 7th Floor, Pan
Am Building, 255 Ponce de Leon Avenue, Hato Rey,
Puerto Rico 00919, Telephone 765-1125.