Union de Tronquistas de Puerto Rico

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 29, 1974

210 N.L.R.B. 1040 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

1040 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union de Tronquistas de Puerto Rico, Local 901,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and
F. F. Instrument Corporation . Cases 24-CC-161
and 24-CB-868
May 29, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
On January 22, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
Paul L. Harper issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Charging Party filed
exceptions and a supporting brief solely addressed to
the Order and Remedy portions of that Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge.
As more fully described in his Decision, the
Administrative Law Judge found that the Respon-
dent engaged in conduct violative of Section
8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) during the course
of its picketing of premises shared by Dura Form
Corporation, with whom it had a primary dispute,
and F. F. Instrument Corporation, a neutral employ-
er, who is the Charging Party herein.' Dura Form
subleases a portion of the second floor of its building
in Caguas, Puerto Rico, to F. F. Instrument. While
both F. F. Instrument and Dura Form have separate
shipping docks and entrances into the building, they
share the single entrance through a wire cyclone
fence that encircles the building and adjoining
parking areas. An access road from the main
highway leads to this entrance. The Administrative
Law Judge specifically found that Respondent
violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) and 8(b)(1)(A) when its
agents used threats of violence in an attempt to
induce employees of F. F. Instrument to join the
strike with employees of Dura Form and to refuse to
perform services for F. F. Instrument. The Respon-
dent also was found by him to have violated Section
8(b)(4)(i)(B) and 8(b)(1)(A) when its agents threat-
ened employees of two suppliers of F. F. Instrument
with violence if they did not honor the strike picket
i Although the Respondent's picketing was aimed at Dura Form, it made
no attempt to disclose that its dispute was only with Dura Form and not F
F Instrument
2 Union de Tronquistas de Puerto Rico, Local 901 (Lock Joint Pipe & Co of
Puerto Rico), 202 NLRB No 43; Union de Tronquistas de Puerto Rico, Local
901 (Hotel La Concha), 193 NLRB 591 (enfd. C.A 1, 1972), Union de
line. Finally, he found that agents of Respondent
violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) when they threatened
F. F. Instrument's general manager that nobody
would be allowed in or out of the plant, that the
strike was going to be a long one with the Union
completely shutting down the facility, and that F. F.
Instrument should break its lease with Dura Form
and move its equipment out of the building and away
from the area. No exceptions were filed to any of
these findings.
The Administrative Law Judge's recommended
Order required the Respondent to cease and desist
from engaging in such unlawful conduct and to post
a notice in its offices stating that it will not engage in
such conduct in the future. In its exceptions thereto,
the Charging Party contends that the recommended
Order is inadequate to the task of expunging the
effects of the aforesaid unfair labor practices found
to have been committed by Respondent. It argues
that Respondent's past proclivity to disregard em-
ployee rights in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) by
resorting to violence and threats of violence, as
found in prior Board cases,2 along with the conse-
quent ineffectiveness of our standard remedies upon
the Respondent, requires the imposition of extraordi-
nary remedies.
First, the Charging Party urges that the Respon-
dent should be required to reimburse the Board and
itself for the expenses incurred in investigation,
preparation, presentation, and conduct of this case in
order to discourage further 8(b)(1)(A) violations on
the part of the Respondent. We have only awarded
such cost reimbursement remedy in limited circum-
stances where frivolous defenses were raised by a
litigious Respondent strictly to delay or avoid its
obligations under the Act. See, e.g., Tiidee Products,
Inc., 194 NLRB 1234. For the following reasons, we
are not willing to find that Respondent's contesting
this matter through to a decision of an Administra-
tive Law Judge should be construed as wholly
frivolous.
In the instant case, the Respondent posted identi-
cal affirmative defenses to the 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(4)
allegations in the complaint, arguing that F. F.
Instrument was an "ally" of Dura Form in that F. F.
Instrument was producing goods and services for
Dura Form and its customers. The Administrative
Law Judge properly granted the General Counsel's
and Charging Party's motions to strike this defense
as to the 8(b)(1)(A) allegations since the ally doctrine
has no relevance to issues involving 8(b)(1)(A)
Tronquistas de Puerto Rico, Local 901 ( Bourne Puerto Rico, Inc ), Case
24-CB-713 (TXD-4O- 70 adopted by Board Order), Union de Tronquislas de
Puerto Rico, Local 901 (Barceloneta Shoe Corp), Case 24-CB-702
(TXD-32-70 adopted by Board Order ); Union de Tronquistas de Puerto
Rico, Local 901 (Envelopes, Inc), Case 24-CBi62 (TXD-225-69 adopted
by Board Order)
210 NLRB No. 153
UNION DE TRONQUISTAS DE PUERTO RICO 1041
conduct. However, Respondent's ally defense, if it
had been proven, might well have furnished a valid
defense to the 8(b)(4) allegations,3 and therefore we
are unwilling to categorize it as a total sham.
Nonetheless, Respondent failed to introduce any
evidence or call any witnesses in support of its
defense that F. F. Instrument was an ally of Dura
Form, and the record establishes the contrary in that
F. F. Instrument was but one of the suppliers of
machine toolings and other related parts necessary
for Dura Form's manufacture of plastic molded
components. Thus, in our view, any further litigation
in this case would constitute an abuse of the
processes of the Board and the courts. Consequently,
in the event the Respondent either seeks judicial
review of our Order herein or disregards our Order,
necessitating the General Counsel to seek judicial
enforcement, we believe that the policies of the Act
will be best effectuated by the General Counsel
promptly proceeding on our behalf to seek appropri-
ate relief under Section 10(e) of the Act as well as
Rule 38, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, for
reimbursement of the expenses of such subsequent
proceedings. See, e .g., John Singer, Inc., 197 NLRB
88.
The Charging Party also contends that the Admin-
istrative Law Judge's Order requiring the posting of a
notice by the Respondent Union is inadequate in two
respects. First, it requests that the notice should be
phrased in "extremely blunt language" which, it
argues , would be more meaningful to the average
factory worker. We are not persuaded, and do not
find that the language and meaning of our attached
notice,4 which will be posted both in English and
Spanish, will be unclear or unintelligible to the
employees. Secondly, the Charging Party urges that
copies of the notice should be mailed to all of its
employees rather than merely being posted at
Respondent Union's office and the Charging Party's
factory if it is willing. We find merit in this latter
suggestion . As a consequence of the Respondent's
continuing disregard of employee rights we shall
again require the Respondent to mail signed copies
of the notice to all employees of the Charging Party
as was done in Union de Tronquistas de Puerto Rico,
Local 901 (Lock Joint Pipe & Co. of Puerto Rico), 202
NLRB No. 43, and Union de Tronquistas de Puerto
Rico, Local 901 (Hotel La Concha), 193 NLRB 591.5
The Charging Party further argues that the Board
3 Cf. N L. R B v Business Machine and Office Mechanics Appliance
Conference Board Local 459 (Royal Typewriter Co), 228 F 2d 553 (C A. 2)
4 We have substituted our notice for that proposed by the Administrative
Law Judge because we have included a statement that Respondent will not
use threats to coerce and restrain employees in violation of Sec. 8(b)(1)(A)
S The Administrative Law Judge properly refused to allow litigation with
respect to whether Respondent also violated Sec 8(b)(l)(A) by allegedly
tearing down a Board notice postponing hearing in Case 244RC-5167
should withdraw the use of its procedures from the
Respondent Union "until such time as the union by
positive action indicates its agreement to cease
engaging in" willful violation of Board orders and
Section 8(b)(1)(A). Specifically, the Charging Party
requests the Board to dismiss the Respondent's
petition in Case 24-RC-5167 in which the Respon-
dent seeks to represent the Charging Party's employ-
ees. In our view, adoption of this extreme remedy
under these circumstances would not be appropriate
to achieve the purely remedial objectives of the Act.
See, e.g., Russell Motors, Inc., 198 NLRB No. 58;
Raymond Buick, Inc., 173 NLRB 1292. Rather, the
rights of these employees will be sufficiently safe-
guarded by conducting a secret ballot election after
the Respondent has complied with our Order and the
effects of its unfair labor practices have dissipated.
Finally, the Charging Party asks us to reconsider
our decision in Lock Joint, supra, in which we
declined to reimburse employees for time lost from
work as a result of the Respondent's unfair labor
practices. We find it unnecessary to pass on this
question since there is no evidence that any employ-
ees lost worktime or wages as a consequence of the
Respondent's unfair labor practices.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Union de Tronquistas de Puerto Rico, Local 901,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Inducing or encouraging, by picketing or any
other means, individuals employed by F. F. Instru-
ment Corporation, Puerto Rico Automatics, Inc.,
Edwin V. Goss, Inc., or any other person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to
engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of their
employment to perform services for their respective
employers, where an object thereof is to force or
require Dura Form, Inc., Puerto Rico Automatics,
Inc., and Edwin V. Goss, Inc., to cease doing
business with F. F. Instrument Corporation.
(b) Threating, coercing, or restraining F. F.
Instrument Corporation where an object thereof is to
because this incident was beyond the scope of the General Counsel's
complaint Nevertheless, the Charging Party argues that evidence of this
incident should have been admitted because it also relates to the remedy
and tends to show the inadequacy of merely requiring the Respondent to
post a notice We find it unnecessary to decide whether the Administrative
Law Judge erred in rejecting this evidence for that limited purpose in view
of our determination that all employees should receive a copy of the notice
by mail
1042 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
force or require F. F. Instrument Corporation to
cease doing business with Dura Form, Inc.
(c) Restraining or coercing employees of F. F.
Instrument Corporation, Puerto Rico Automatics,
Inc., Edwin V. Goss, Inc., or the employees of any
other employer in Puerto Rico, particularly by use of
threats of force, violence, or property damage, from
engaging in their employment.
(d) Restraining or coercing employees in their
exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its business office at Calle del Parque
352, Santurce, Puerto Rico 00908, copies in English
and Spanish of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix."6 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 24, after being duly
signed by the Respondent's representative, shall be
posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereaft-
er, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to members of the Union are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Deliver to the Regional Director of Region 24,
sufficient signed copies of said notice in English and
Spanish for posting by F. F. Instrument Corporation
at all locations where notices to employees of said
Company are customarily posted, if it is willing to
post them.
(c) Mail copies of said signed notice in English and
Spanish to each employee of F. F. Instrument
Corporation.
(d) Notify the Regional Director of Region 24, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be
dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act
not found herein.
6 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
any individual employed by F. F. Instrument
Corporation, or any other person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce,
to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of
employment to perform any services, where an
object thereof is to force or require F. F.
Instrument Corporation, or any other persons, to
cease doing business with Dura Form, Inc.,
Puerto Rico Automatics, Inc., or Edwin V. Goss,
Inc.
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain, F. F.
Instrument Corporation where an object thereof
is to force or require F. F. Instrument Corpora-
tion to cease doing business with Dura Form, Inc.
WE WILL NOT use threats of force, violence, or
property damage to restrain or coerce employees
of F. F. Instrument Corporation, Puerto Rico
Automatics, Inc., Edwin V. Goss, Inc., or employ-
ees of any other employer in Puerto Rico, from
engaging in their employment.
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees in
the exercise of their rights guaranteed by the
National Labor Relations Act.
UNION DE TRONQUISTAS
DE PUERTO Rico, LOCAL
901, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA
(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 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, Pan Am Building, Seventh Floor,
P.O. Box U U, 255 Ponce De Leon Avenue, Hato
Rey, Puerto Rico 00919, Telephone 622-0247.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT, nor will our officers , business
representatives , business agents , or anyone acting
on our behalf , engage in or induce , or encourage
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
PAUL L. HARPER, Administrative Law Judge: Upon a
charge filed by F. F. Instrument Corporation (F. F.
Instrument) in Case 24-CC-161, the General Counsel
issued a complaint on September 25, 1973, alleging
violations of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(ii)(B) of the Act. Upon a
charge filed by F. F. Instrument in Case 24-CB-868, the
General Counsel issued a complaint on October 2, 1973,
UNION DE TRONQUISTAS DE PUERTO RICO 1043
alleging violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. On
October 2 , 1973, an order consolidating cases was issued.
Respondent filed answers in each respective case admitting
some of the allegations of the complaint but denying the
commission of any unfair labor practices . A hearing was
held before me in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on November 6,
1973.
At the trial, full opportunity was afforded to all parties to
introduce relevant evidence , to examine and cross-examine
witnesses , to argue orally on the record, and to submit
briefs.
Upon the entire record in the case, including my
observation of the demeanor of witnesses , I make the
following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS INVOLVED
F. F. Instrument has at all times material to the issues
in this case maintained a place of business at Km. 29.4,
Route No . 1, in the city of Caguas , Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico , where it was engaged in the manufacture,
sale, and distribution of precision instruments, metal
stampings , toolings , and related products.
Dura Form, Inc. (Dura Form), has at all times material
maintained a place of business at Km . 29.4, Route No. 1,
in the City of Caguas , Puerto Rico , where it has been
engaged in the manufacture , sale, and distribution of
plastic molded components and related products.
Puerto Rico Automatics , Inc. (Automatics) has at all
times material maintained a place of business in the City of
Guaynabo, Puerto Rico , where it has been engaged in the
manufacture , sale, and distribution of steel products and
related products.
Edwin V . Goss, Inc. (Goss), has at all times material
maintained a place of business in the City of Rio Piedras,
Puerto Rico , where it has been engaged in providing rental
and transport of heavy equipment services.
During the past year the above named employers, in the
course and conduct of their respective businesses, pur-
chased and sold goods and services valued in excess of
$50,000 to and from their respective places of business in
Puerto Rico directly to and from States in the continental
United States . Respondent admits and I find that the
above-named Employers are engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. RESPONDENT LABOR ORGANIZATION
Union De Tronquistas De Puerto Rico, Local 901,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America , is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Setting
The complaint alleges and the Respondent admits in its
answers , as amended at the hearing, that, "On or about
June 12 , 1973, the Respondent Union , in furtherance of its
contract demands upon Dura Form . . . called a strike by
Dura Form employees , and authorized and established a
picket line , at the common premises of Dura Form and F.
F. Instrument at Km . 29.4, Route 1, Caguas, Puerto Rico."
It is thus clear from the pleadings , the stipulations of the
parties at the hearing , and the evidence that the primary
employer with whom the Respondent Union had a dispute
was Dura Form . Neutral employers involved included F.
F. Instrument , Automatics and Goss.
F. F. Instrument and Dura Form jointly occupy a two-
story building with some 65,000 square feet of space,
situated on a 4-acre lot enclosed by a wire cyclone fence.
For all practical purposes there is only one entrance to
these premises although the building itself provides
separate entrances for the F . F. Instrument and Dura
Form employees , respectively . An access road runs from
the main highway to the main entrance of the premises.
About 75 percent of the building is occupied by Dura
Form 's approximately 100 to 125 employees . The remain-
ing 25 percent, part of the second story , is occupied by
approximately 20 employees of F. F . Instrument.
The premises are leased from the Puerto Rican Com-
monwealth by Dura Form and that portion of the premises
occupied by F. F. Instrument are subleased to it by Dura
Form . Other than physical occupancy of the premises, and
a very small amount of business done between the two
Companies , apparently at arms length , there is no
relationship between the two enterprises . The employees
are engaged in substantially separate kinds of work, there
is no interchange of employees or supervision between the
two Companies , there are separate communications sys-
tems , administrative and clerical offices , loading areas, etc.
A cafeteria used by employees of both Companies is
located on the second story and is operated by an outside
business concern.
Pertinent Facts
As noted above the strike and picketing began June 12,
1973, and continued through June 14, 1973.
The issues presented are as follows:
1. Whether Respondent's picketing of Dura Form at
the common situs occupied by Dura Form and F. F.
Instrument, and specific conduct of its agents at or near
the picketing , constituted unlawful inducement of employ-
ees of neutral employers within the proscription of Section
8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act.
2. Whether Respondent , by the conduct of its agents
threatened , restrained , or coerced F. F. Instrument and
other neutral employers with an object of forcing or
requiring F. F. Instrument to cease doing business with
Dura Form or other employers in violation of Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.
3. Whether Respondent , by the conduct of its agents,
restrained or coerced employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
Gordon A. Pope , president and general manager of F. F.
1044 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Instrument, testified that on June 12, 1973, the first day of
the strike, he approached the pickets at the main entrance
and spoke to Respondent's agents Gotay and Guzman.'
Pope testified that he asked the union agents ". . . what
is this sign doing over here on the main gate saying strike,
we [F. F. Instrument] are not on strike." He further
testified that he explained in detail the relationship
between F. F. Instrument and Dura Form. It is obvious of
course that most if not all the employees on strike were
aware of this relationship. Pope testified that Guzman told
him that F. F. Instrument employees could come into the
plant but that he would not be responsible nor would the
Union be responsible for anything that happened to them
outside of the plant. He further testified that Gotay told
him ". . . that under no circumstances would trucks be
allowed in because there would be no way for him to tell
whether they were delivering to us or Dura Form and
under absolutely no condition could any commercial
vehicles enter this property." 2
Pope approached the picket line a second time later on in
the afternoon. An employee of F. F. Instrument had told
him that Union Agent Guzman wanted to speak to him.
Pope testified that during this second conversation with
Guzman he, Guzman, told him that ". . . because the
plant was being completely shut down that nobody would
be allowed in or out of the plant; no vehicle, no personnel,
nothing." Pope asked Guzman why the Union was taking
this position and Guzman replied that Dura Form's Vice
President Rodriguez had made the statement that ". . . the
strike could be a long strike, as much as a year, so that
therefore the Union was going to shut the place down
completely." Guzman is alleged to have further stated that
"... we could not have any deliveries but if I would make
an arrangement for Guzman to speak to Rodriguez the
following morning . . . that he would allow my employees
to come in the morning, being Wednesday morning." It
was either on this occasion or a later occasion that
Guzman is alleged to have stated that F. F. Instrument
". . . should break the lease [with Dura Form] and move
[its] equipment out of the building and get away from this
area."
Pope testified that on the next day, June 13, early in the
morning when he arrived at the plant he noticed some 8 or
10 cars occupied by employees of F. F. Instrument being
stopped at the main entrance by the pickets. He further
testified that the cars were stopped only temporarily and
that all were permitted to come into the plant and that all
employees of F. F. Instrument worked that day as well as
throughout the 3-day strike. While each car was stopped
temporarily there were certain statements made to them by
the pickets and union agents which will be discussed
hereinafter.
According to Pope a delivery of some machine parts
from Puerto Rico Automatics was scheduled to have been
made on June 12 or June 13, but that the pickets refused to
allow the delivery to be made.
The driver for Automatics, Eligio Rios, testified that he
arrived at the situs with a load for "some parts" to be
delivered to F. F. Instrument about 8:30 on the morning of
June 14. His first encounter was with the police who told
him there was a strike in progress and suggested ". . . the
best thing I could do was turn around." A few moments
later a group of men approached him and asked him to
"please cooperate." He testified there were no picket signs
within view. He then left, made another delivery elsewhere,
and returned a second time about 10:30 a.m. Again "The
boys came down off the hill again and asked me `didn't we
tell you that there was a strike?' " Rios replied he came
back "to see if it had ended." The pickets told him if he
entered the premises he would be a "strikebreaker." On
this second occasion Rios testified he informed the pickets
his delivery was destined to be made to F. F . Instrument.
The pickets again informed him "They were on strike" but
did not identify the company they were striking.
Goss was scheduled to make a delivery of heavy
equipment to F. F. Instrument on June 13, the second day
of the strike. The driver, Ferdinand Rivera, was stopped by
a group of pickets approximately 30 yards from the main
entrance. When Pope became aware of the attempted
delivery he approached Rivera and urged him to make the
delivery. Rivera stated to Pope ". . . that the picket line
had stopped him and wouldn't allow him to pass." There
were "probably fifty" pickets nearby, according to Pope.
Rivera testified regarding this event as follows: He
arrived at the situs about 9:30 to 10 a.m.; noticed
immediately that a strike was in progress; did not see any
picket signs; Pope approached him and some of the strikers
said ". . . that I couldn't pass by because they were on
strike"; that "... if I broke the picket line, they couldn't
assure me of any security." Rivera was specifically
questioned on the point of whether he told the strikers the
identity of the Company to which the delivery was to be
made. He testified he told the strikers ". . . the machine I
was delivering that day belongs to F. F . Instrument," and
the strikers replied ". . . that they were on strike and they
couldn't assure me of any safety at all, you know, anything
that would happen." Rivera then communicated by twc
way radio with his company's management advising them
of the situation. According to Rivera he was directed by his
supervisor to stand by or wait to see what developed. He
had been told by some of the strikers the strike would be
over about 1:30 p.m. He waited until 2:30 or 3 p.m. and
left without making the delivery. The next day, after the
strike had ended, he made the delivery.
Alejo Santos, an employee of F. F. Instrument, testified
that on June 12, the first day of the Dura Form strike, as he
was attempting to leave the premises through the common
entrance on his way to lunch he was stopped (the plant
cafeteria was closed) by Union Agent Gotay. He testified
that Gotay told him not to go through the gate. Santos
replied that he was on his way out for lunch. Gotay
responded "yes, if you go out that gate, you're going to
take your clothes because you're not going to be able to
come back," "... to go back and tell my fellow
companions that that day nor the next day should they try
to go out and he also told me that if I should go out and try
I The parties stipulated at the hearing that Gotay was an agent of the
Respondent Respondent's counsel stipulated only that Guzman was a
"delegate " I find both to be agents of the Respondent Guzman is
deceased
2 Gotay did not testify at the hearing.
UNION DE TRONQUISTAS DE PUERTO RICO 1045
to come back in, that I would get a beating ." Santos
testified he told Gotay at the outset that he didn't work for
Dura Form , that he was an employee of F. F. Instrument.
Santos and his fellow workers remained within the
enclosed premises until quitting time.
Felipe Nievos Mourey, an employee of F. F. Instrument,
testified concerning a conversation with Union Agent
Guzman as follows : That on coming to work in his car on
June 13, the second day of the strike , he was stopped at the
main entrance by a group of Dura Form strikers; Union
Agent Guzman approached and told him he "... could go
in and work provided that I left the car outside the
plant,"-". .. that if I were to take the car into the plant I
had no guarantee in the afternoon when I came out."
Pedro Ramirey Almodovar , another employee of F. F.
Instrument , testified about a conversation with Union
Agent Guzman on June 13 as follows : He arrived in his car
at the main entrance at the beginning of the workday;
Guzman "indicated" he should stop and made the
statement to him that ". . . he had made some sort of
agreement with Mr. Pope that nothing would happen to us
within the plant grounds but he could not guarantee to me
that nothing would happen on the highway."
CONCLUDING FINDINGS
The evidence establishes, and I find, that F. F.
Instrument and Dura Form are two separate enterprises
and at all times material hereto occupied a common situs
in the performance of their respective manufacturing
operations.
There can be no question under the factual circum-
stances of this case that the Union's primary dispute was at
all material times with Dura Form. Thus Dura Form is the
primary employer in this situation and F. F. Instrument,
Automatics, and Goss are secondary or neutral employers.
It is also clear from the evidence , and in fact the
admissions contained in Respondent' s answers, as amend-
ed at the hearing, to the complaints herein, that the
Respondent Union on June 12, 1973, " in furtherance of its
contract demands upon Dura Form called a strike by Dura
Form employees, and authorized and established a picket
line, and thereafter continued to maintain said picket line
at the common premises of Dura Form and F. F.
Instrument at Km. 29.4, Route No. 4, Caguas, Puerto
Rico." The strike and picketing continued from June 12
through 14, 1973. This activity ended when a bargaining
contract was executed between Respondent Union and
Dura Form late in the day on June 14.
It is thus clear that Respondent's primary object of the
strike and picketing was to obtain a bargaining agreement
with Dura Form. This finding however does not preclude,
as I do for reasons set forth below, a finding that
Respondent's strike and picketing, in the context of all the
factual circumstances herein, had as an object the forcing
or requiring F. F. Instrument to cease doing business with
Dura Form, Automatics , and Goss,
Whenever , as here, common situs picketing is involved
the Board has developed certain criteria governing the
conduct of a union which has authorized and established
such picketing. One such criterion is:
... that the picketing clearly disclose that the
dispute was only with the primary employer.3
Of the seven witnesses who testified at this hearing, only
F. F. Instrument's general manager, Pope, testified,
somewhat indefinitely, that there may have been placards
at the scene of the picketing. I believe and find that he was
mistaken in this and credit the testimony of the other
witnesses that no placards, as such , were utilized by the
picketing Dura Form employees . Instead there was only
the word "Huelga" (Spanish word for strike ) written across
the entrance sign at the main gate and similar writing on
nearby trees and on the ground near the entrance. I can
find nothing in the law which requires picket signs to take
on any particular form or to prefer one form over any
other. It is clear from the testimony of all the witnesses,
and I find , that the picket signs did not identify the
company, or even the Respondent Union for that matter,
between whom the dispute existed.
As noted above, three employees of F. F. Instrument,
testified regarding incidents occurring at or near the picket
line on June 12 or 13. In each instance an agent of the
Respondent Union was involved . Thus employee Santos
testified he was stopped at the picket line on June 12 and
told by Union Agent Gotay that if he left the premises for
lunch he would not "be able to come back, . . . and that if
he did $o out and try to come back that he would "get a
beating.' I find such conduct to constitute inducement of
an employee of a neutral employer to either join the strike
in progress or to engage in a refusal in the course of his
employment to perform services in violation of Section
8(b)(4XiXB) of the Act. I further find that such conduct
restrained and coerced employee Santos in the exercise of
his statutory rights and thereby violated Section 8(bXl)(A)
of the Act.
A second employee of F. F. Instrument, Felipe Nievas
Moviez , testified he too was stopped at the picket line. This
occurred on June 13. Again a union agent , Guzman, told
him if he took his car into the parking lot inside the main
gate of the plant he "had no guarantee in the afternoon
when I came out." I find this conduct to constitute
unlawful inducement in violation of Section 8 (b)(4)(i)(B) of
the Act, as well as restraint and coercion in violation of
Section 8(bX1XA) of the Act.
A third employee of F. F. Instrument, Pedro Ramivez
Almodovar, testified that on June 13 he was stopped at the
main entrance by Union Agent Guzman, in the presence of
a number of striking employees , and told that nothing
would happen to him "within the plant rounds" but that
"he could not guarantee to me that nothing would happen
on the highway." I find this to be unlawful inducement in
violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act and also
restraint and coercion in violation of Section 8(bXIXA) of
the Act.
Automatics driver Rios testified that on June 14 a group
of strikers approached him while he was attempting to
make a delivery to, F. F. Instrument and asked him to
3 Sailors ' Union of the Pacific (Moore Dry Dock Co.), 92 NLRB 547, 549.
1046 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"please cooperate ." He left but returned a second time
when the strikers stated to him "didn 't we tell you that
there was a strike ." On this second occasion Rios replied "I
came to see if it had ended ." Rios estimated there were
eight or nine strikers but could not identify any agents of
the Union among the group. Nevertheless he told the
group he was attempting to make a delivery to F. F.
Instrument and the strikers replied that "they were on
strike and that if I entered I'd be a strikebreaker."
It seems to me on this second occasion , after Rios
advised the strikers the name of the neutral employer for
whom delivery was to be made , it was incumbent upon
them to identify the employer they were striking. I fully
credit Rios' uncontradicted testimony and find that by
such conduct Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(iXB) of the Act.
Based on the undenied testimony of Goss' driver Rivera,
which I fully credit, I find that Respondent, by stopping
him at the picket line , while attempting to make a delivery
of equipment to F. F. Instrument and making such
statements that if he "broke the picket line" they "couldn't
assure" him "of any security"-"of any safety at all,"
unlawfully induced Rivera to honor the picket line in
violation of Section 8(b)(4XiXB) of the Act. I further find
that such conduct threatened , restrained , and coerced this
employee in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act in
violation of Section 8(bXl)(A) of the Act.
The inducement of Automatics and Goss employees to
refuse to perform their normal duties in connection with
deliveries to F. F. Instrument , an innocent neutral
employer , discloses that at least an object of Respondent
was the enmeshment of neutral employers.4
Undenied testimony in the record, which I fully credit,
establishes that Respondent , through its Agents Guzman
and Gotay, by conduct discussed in detail above, including
threatening F. F. Instrument 's general manager, Pope,
thereby engaged in unlawful restraint and coercion with at
least an object of forcing or requiring F. F. Instrument to
cease doing business with Dura Form. Accordingly, I find
that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(b)(4)(iiXB) of
the Act.
In determining the responsibility of a union for the
conduct of pickets the Board has long applied the ordinary
law of agency. A principal may be responsible for the act
of his agent within the scope of the agent's general
authority even though the principal has not specifically
authorized the act in question . It is enough if the principal
empowered the agent to represent him in the general area
within which the agent acted. The Union in the subject
case admittedly authorized the Dura Form strike and
established the picketing at and near the main entrance of
the common premises occupied by Dura Form and F. F.
Instrument . As described elsewhere admitted agents of
Respondent, Guzman and Gotay, stopped practically all F.
F. Instrument employees entering and leaving the premises
during the strike and as the credible evidence reveals
engaged in acts of unlawful inducement at and near the
scene of picketing in the presence of striking Dura Form
employees and others . Thus the conduct of picketing Dura
Form employees in stopping employees of neutral employ-
ers attempting to make deliveries and inducing them to
honor the picket line was merely a continuation of the
same conduct engaged in by known and admitted agents of
Respondent.5
Although not alleged in the complaint and vigorously
opposed by Counsel for the General Counsel, I permitted
the Charging Party herein to present an offer of proof, in
question and answer form, concerning an incident occur-
ring on September 14, 1973. This incident involved
Teamsters Agents Guzman and Rodriquez removing a
notice (order Postponing Hearing in Case 24-RC-5167)
from the bulletin board of F. F. Instrument Corporation .6
The Charging Party contends that this action was taken in
violation of company rules and in the presence of many of
its employees and this was in violation of Section
8(b)(IXA) of the Act.
As pointed out by Counsel for the General Counsel the
charge in Case 24-CB-868 contained an allegation
concerning this incident; the Regional Director for Region
24 declined to include such an allegation in the subject
complaint; the Regional Director's action was sustained by
the General Counsel on the appeal of the Charging Party.
Counsel for the Charging Party admitted on the record
that this matter , at the time of the hearing , was pending
before the General Counsel on his motion for reconsidera-
tion. In view of these circumstances I sustained the
objection of General Counsel and rejected the offer of
proof . Upon full consideration of the arguments contained
in Charging Party's brief I now reaffirm this ruling.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent, Union De Tronquistas De Puerto Rico,
Local 901, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America , is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. F. F. Instrument, Dura Form, Automatics, and Goss
are employers within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the
Act and are engaged in commerce or in an industry
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
3. By the conduct set forth above, Respondent has
induced and encouraged employees of neutral employers
to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of their
employment to perform services , with an object of forcing
or requiring F. F. Instrument to cease doing business with
Dura Form, Automatics, and Goss, thereby engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(bX4Xi)(B) of the Act.
4. Respondent, by the conduct set forth above has
threatened , restrained , and coerced F. F. Instrument with
an object of forcing or requiring F. F. Instrument to cease
doing business with Dura Form, and other neutral
employers in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.
5. Respondent, by the conduct set forth above, has
restrained and coerced employees of neutral employers in
the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
I See Polly Electric Company , 175 NLRB 507, 510; also Carpenters 6 The representation hearing in Case 24-RC-5167 had been ordered
Local Union No. 944, 159 NLRB 563, 565 . postponed indefinitely "due to the pendency of unfair labor practice charge
5 See Sunset Line and 7Wine Company, 79 NLRB 1487, 1507. Case 24-CC-161"
UNION DE TRONQUISTAS DE PUERTO RICO 1047
Act, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
7. Respondent has not engaged in any other unfair
labor practices not specifically found herein.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has violated Section
8(b)(4)(i)(ii)(B) and 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act , I will recom-
mend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
At the hearing , and more specifically in his brief , counsel
for Charging Party urges that Respondent 's "proclivity to
engage in unlawful picket line violence and threats of
violence" and numerous Board and court decisions finding
Respondent guilty of such conduct , requires extraordinary
remedial measures in the subject case . He urges that the
Notice to Members should include ( 1) the Notice language
should "be extremely blunt language" and contain admis-
sions of unlawful conduct ; (2) provision that Respondent's
agents be "required to read the Notice to employees of F.
F. at the company 's premises"; (3) requirement that
Respondent "provide F. F. with sufficient copies of the
Notice with original signatures thereon to mail to all the
employees of F. F."; (4) provision that the Board withdraw
the use of its procedures from Respondent "at least with
respect to the instant employees"; and the petition in Case
24-RC-5167 to be dismissed ; (5) provision that Respon-
dent "reimburse the NLRB and the Charging Party for
their expenses incurred in the investigation , preparation,
presentation , and conduct of these cases" ; and (6)
provision in the Notice for backpay "to employees who did
not work as a result of the unfair labor practices " thereby
requesting the Board to reconsider its prior refusal to
provide such a remedy in Lock Joint Pipe & Co., 202 NLRB
399.
After full consideration of the Charging Party's argu-
ments for the necessity of such an extraordinary remedy I
remain unconvinced that the violative conduct found
herein is of such pervasive proportions to warrant such
provisions in the Notice . I believe and find that the record
evidence supports the findings and conclusions set forth
herein and that the purposes and policies of the Act will be
appropriately effectuated by the remedy provided in the
recommended Order.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]