Union Nacional de Trabajadores

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 23, 1975

219 N.L.R.B. 429 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

UNION NACIONAL DE TRABAJADORES 429
Union Nacional de Trabajadores and Its Agent Arturo
Grant and Macal Container Corporation . Case 24-
CB-888
July 23, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 31, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
Eugene E. Dixon issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondents and the Gener-
al Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs,
and the Charging Party filed exceptions.'
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge as
modified herein.
We find merit in the exceptions taken by the Gen-
eral Counsel and Charging Party to the Administra-
tive Law Judge's failure to find that Respondents
violated Section 8(b)(I)(A) by violently assaulting the
president of the Charging Party in the presence of
employees of the Charging Party. The assault oc-
curred in the course of an attempt by Respondents to
force the Charging Party to reinstate some employees
whose terminations were a matter of dispute. That
Respondents would resort to such tactics in enforc-
ing their demands would, in the circumstances of this
case, tend to have a coercive effect upon employees
regarding their own exercise of rights guaranteed by
the Act. The fact that there was no evidence of a
strike being conducted on the date the assault oc-
curred does not in itself negate the potential coercive
effect on interested employees.3 We therefore find
that Respondents further violated Section 8(b)(1)(A)
by virtue of their assault on Mr. Calderon.
We also find, however, that one of the incidents of
8(b)(1)(A) violation found by the Administrative
Law Judge is not supported by the evidence. The
Administrative Law Judge found that on two sepa-
rate occasions Miguel A. Ortiz-Martinez was threat-
ened by Respondents in violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A). One of these occasions was on May 28,
1974, and the other was approximately 2 weeks earli-
i Respondents ' request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record
and briefs adequately present the issues and positions of the parties.
2 The Respondents have excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board 's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge 's resolutions with respect to credibili-
ty unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces
us that the resolutions are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91
NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
3 Contrary to the Administrative Law Judge, we read the uncontroverted
testimony of witness Ortiz as evidence that employees of the Charging Party
were on strike on April 23, 1974, the day after this incident.
er. Ortiz testified that he was employed by the Charg-
ing Party on May 27, 1974. Since the earlier incident
occurred at a time when there is no evidence that
Ortiz was an employee , the occurrence he described
in his testimony is insufficient to constitute restraint
or coercion of employees within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A).
Finally, we agree with the Administrative Law
Judge that Respondents impliedly threatened Ortiz
during a recess at the hearing in the instant proceed-
ing when , after Ortiz had completed his testimony
regarding earlier incidents of alleged coercion, Re-
spondent Grant said to him , "The street is lonely at
night ." We think this implied threat was directed at
Ortiz' giving of testimony in support of the complaint
herein and was for that reason violative of Section
8(b)(1)(A).4
THE REMEDY
As we have found that the midhearing threat to
Ortiz was a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) for a dif-
ferent reason than the other violations already found,
and as we have found an additional violation of Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A) in the assault on Calderon, we shall
modify the recommended Order accordingly.'
As we find that Respondents' conduct herein is
similar to conduct violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) as
found in the cases of Union Nacional de Trabajadores
and Its Agent, Alcides Serrano (Jacobs Constructors
Company of Puerto Rico), 219 NLRB No. 65, and
Union Nacional de Trabajadores and Comite Organi-
zador Obreros en Huelga de Catalytic (Catalytic Indus-
trial Maintenance Co., Inc.), 219 NLRB No. 66, both
issued on this date, we shall expand the scope of the
Order to enjoin the restraining or coercing of em-
ployees of the Charging Party or of any other em-
ployer in Puerto Rico, and to require extraordinary
measures concerning the publication and distribution
of the usual notice, so as to better effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act and serve the public interest.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that Respondent, Union
Nacional de Trabajadores, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico,
its officers, agents, and representatives, and Respon-
dent Arturo Grant while acting as agent of Respon-
d International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 34,
AFL-CIO (Protection Alarms, Inc.), 208 NLRB 639 (1974).
3 The finding of a violation by the Administrative Law Judge which we
have reversed, because Ortiz was not an employee at the time, was similar to
other violations we have found. Therefore the reversal does not affect the
remedy provided herein.
430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dent Union Nacional de Trabajadores, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Restraining or coercing employees of Macal
Container Corporation or of any other employer in
Puerto Rico by assaulting or threatening assault or
other damage to employees, to representatives of em-
ployers, or to anyone else for the purpose of prevent-
ing employees from working for Macal or any other
employer, or preventing employees from testifying
fully and truthfully at a hearing conducted by the
National Labor Relations Board.
(b) In any other manner restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its offices and meeting places in Puerto
Rico copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix." 6 Copies of said notice, in English and in Span-
ish, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 24, after being duly signed by Arturo Grant and
an authorized representative of the Respondent
Union, shall be posted by it immediately upon re-
ceipt thereof and be maintained by it for a period of
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to its mem-
bers are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondents to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other ma-
terial.
(b) Forthwith mail copies of said notice, in Eng-
lish and in Spanish, to the said Regional Director,
after said copies have been signed as provided above,
for mailing of said notice by the Regional Director to
each employee in Puerto Rico of Macal Corporation,
and to Macal Container Corporation, for posting by
it, if willing, at its premises at any location in Puerto
Rico in places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted.
(c) Publish said notice, at Respondent Union's ex-
pense, in all newspapers of general distribution pub-
lished in Puerto Rico, and in any newspaper of Re-
spondent Union, in each case in the language in
which the newspaper is printed.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 24, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps the Respondents have taken to comply
herewith.
MEMBER KENNEDY, dissenting in part:
For the reasons fully stated in my dissenting opin-
ion in Catalytic Industrial Maintenance Co., Inc., 219
NLRB No. 66, issued this date, I dissent from my
colleagues' refusal to award backpay to those em-
ployees who were prevented from working by Re-
spondents' unlawful restraint and coercion.
As in Catalytic and Jacobs Constructors Company
of Puerto Rico, 219 NLRB No. 65, also issued this
date, agents of Respondent Nacional, particularly
Respondent Arturo Grant, its president, threatened
employees and company officials with physical harm
if they attempted to undermine the strike effort.
In addition, according to the credited testimony,
Grant pushed Macal President Calderon down a
flight of stairs, requiring his hospitalization for ap-
proximately 5 months. Miquel A. Ortiz-Martinez tes-
tified that three union officials-Grant, Castro-Ra-
mos, and Sampson-"were not allowing employees
to go into work." Ortiz-Martinez himself was warned
by Sampson that "you might come out in a coffin if
you go in there."
Jose Ramon-Malabet testified that he "and a few
others" were approached at the plant gate by approx-
imately seven union agents, including Grant, and
were told, "This is Union Nacional and we are not
responsible for what will happen to you. Get the hell
out of here." Grant subsequently placed his hand
over Malabet's mouth and, with reference to the
plant, warned, "Don't try to get in there, we already
told you you can't go in there." Finally, Grant stated
that, if the employees went inside, "the [Respondent
Nacional's agents] would blow the top of their heads
off. This is Union Nacional and we kill people. So
leave."
On the basis of this credited testimony and for the
reasons stated in my Catalytic dissent, supra, I would
award backpay for wages lost on account of Respon-
dents' unlawful conduct.
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."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT assault anyone or threaten any-
one with assault or other damage for the pur-
pose of preventing employees of Macal Contain-
er Corporation or of any other employer in
Puerto Rico from working for Macal or any
other employer, or preventing them from testify-
ing fully and truthfully at a hearing conducted
by the National Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees in
any other manner in the exercise of the rights
UNION NACIONAL DE TRABAJADORES
guaranteed them in the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, except as a condition of
employment as provided in Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.
UNION NACIONAL DE TRABAJADORES
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
EUGENE E. DIXON, Administrative Law Judge: Upon
charges filed on April 24, 1974, by Macal Container Cor-
poration alleging that Union Nacional de Trabajadores
and its Agent Arturo Grant had engaged in and were en-
gaging in unfair labor practices in violation of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), herein
called the Act, a representative of the General Counsel of
the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the
General Counsel and the Board, issued a complaint dated
June 10, 1974, alleging violations by Respondent of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
The complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleged in
substance that the Respondent had engaged in various acts
of intimidation and violence or threats of such and blocked
the access of employees to the Company's plant. In its an-
swer Respondent denied the commission of any unfair la-
bor practices.
Pursuant to notice the matter was heard at Hato Rey,
Puerto Rico, August 6 and 7, 1974, with all parties repre-
sented by counsel.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observa-
tion of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS INVOLVED
The Employer is and has been at all times material here-
in a corporation duly organized under, and existing by vir-
tue of, the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. At
all times material the Employer has maintained an office
and place of business at Julio N. Matos Industrial Park, in
the city of Carolina, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, herein
called the plant, where it is, and has been at all times mate-
rial, engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of
paper boxes and related products. During the past year,
which is representative of its annual operations generally,
the Employer, in the course and conduct of its business,
purchased and caused to be transported and delivered to
its plant, cardboard and other goods and materials valued
in excess of $50,000, which were transported and delivered
to its plant in interstate commerce directly from points lo-
cated outside of Puerto Rico. The.Employer is and has
been at all times material an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
431
Union Nacional de Trabajadores is, and has been at all
times material, a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Manuel Calderon, president of Macal, testified that
about noon on April 22, 1974, Union President Arturo
Grant accompanied by two men I entered Respondent's
plant and in the presence of about four employees asked
Calderon for "the cards of the employees who had re-
signed" demanding that he "put them to work immedi-
ately." Calderon, surrounded by the three men, asked who
Grant was and what he was doing there. Grant told Cal-
deron that Calderon knew who he was and said "You son-
of-a-bitch, put those people to work." Calderon said that
they had resigned voluntarily and Grant pushed him down
on the steps leading to the office mezzanine . Calderon then
shouted to his wife Lydia who was on the office mezzanine
to lock herself in the office. Hearing this Grant again
pushed Calderon and headed up the stairs.
On the mezzanine Grant called down to his two com-
panions to bring Calderon up to the office. In the mean-
time Mrs. Calderon, becoming hysterical, pleaded with the
two men to leave her husband alone because he "suffers
from a heart condition and . . . could die." At this, one of
the men laughed and said "F- him, let him die." At this
point Mrs. Calderon came down the stairs. One of the men
told her "Get the hell out of here, the one we want is him."
They also said that they were going to stay with Calderon
and "were going to keep the factory."
Mrs. Calderon then left the plant and "all of a sudden"
Calderon "broke loose" and joined his wife outside who
had gotten into their car with a company employee at the
wheel. Calderon got in the car and he and his wife were
driven away.
According to Calderon's further testimony, he returned
to the plant that evening in the company of a friend, his
lawyer, and the doctor who had attended his wife who had
been hospitalized that day, as was Calderon the following
day, both of whom were not released until September 30.
At this point they found two policemen outside. When they
went to unlock the plant they found the lock jammed with
little pieces of wood and were forced to "wrench away the
hasp" to gain entrance . Inside they discovered that the res-
ignation card of one employee and some other unidentified
cards and a keyholder with keys to the office and plant
were missing.
Mrs Calderon substantially corroborated her husband's
testimony.
The only one to testify about the foregoing incident on
behalf of Respondent was Arturo Grant. He testified that
he and his two companions met Calderon as he was com-
ing out of his office. Grant introduced himself as president
of the Union Nacional and stated that he was there on
official business . Calderon replied that he had nothing to
1 It was established that one of the two men accompanying Grant was
Elias Castro who, although present at the hearing, did not testify
432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
say to Grant or any union and referred Grant to his law-
yer. Grant replied that his concern was to get recognition
for the Union and to discuss the discharge that morning of
seven employees. At this point, according to Grant,
Calderon's wife "came out of the office and she came out
quite nervous. She expressed herself as though somebody
was going to jump on her and her husband and she also
expressed herself that nothing should be done to her hus-
band because he had a heart condition and nothing should
be done to her because she was a cripple." At that moment
they "all started downstairs, being that Mr. Calderon had
indicated that [they all] could go the offices of his lawyer."
As to what happened at this point Grant testified as fol-
lows:
After that Mrs. Calderon showed a very nervous state
and Mr. Elias Castro spoke to Mr. Calderon and told
him he thought that it would be best if he took his wife
some place for her nervous condition. At that moment
Mrs. Calderon called one of the employees so that he
could take her to the hospital. Meanwhile we asked
Mr. Calderon for the letters that he had made these
employees sign as resignations, and one involved spe-
cifically Mr. Alberto-I do not remember the last
name-Mr . Calderon told Mr. Alberto that if he did
not sign that letter of resignation, that for the money
he owed Mr. Calderon he would be taken to court,
that he did not want any of his employees unionized,
and in respect to each employee, something similar
had occurred, and that is why we were insisting on
discussing this problem.
After Mrs. Calderon went outside Calderon said, "Let
me go out to my wife" which he did, joining her in the car
and leaving. After that Grant told Calderon's son, Rober-
to, to close the plant which Roberto did.2 In his testimony
Grant denied speaking offensively or threateningly to Cal-
deron or at any time touching him. He also denied saying
that he was going to take over the plant.
In addition to my observation of the witnesses, the fact
that Castro did not testify (although being present at the
hearing), that for no apparent reason Mrs. Calderon, ac-
cording to Respondent's testimony, became so upset as to
prompt a suggestion by Castro that she have the attention
of a doctor, I credit the General Counsel's version of the
foregoing.
Nonetheless, in the absence of a showing that there was
a strike in progress at Macal at this time 3 or other concert-
ed activity of the employees upon which the Union's ac-
tions could have influence, I find that the above conduct of
Respondent, however reprehensible or accountable under
other laws, cannot be said to have coerced or interfered
with the employees' rights within the meaning of Section
2 Roberto Calderon apparently was estranged from his father and testi-
fied at the call of Respondent corroborating Grant's testimony that Roberto
locked up the plant.
3 The complaint alleged a strike commencing on or about April 23. No
evidence was offered to support this allegation . The earliest that a strike was
indicated came in the testimony of Assistant Manager Flores who related
that on May 6 he waited at the plant about noon and that the employees
had "shouted from outside that they were on strike and that they did not
want to enter in to work."
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Here there was no evidence of any
kind of action being engaged in by the employees in which
they could exercise their Section 7 right to join or refrain
from and thus nothing that the Union's conduct could in-
fluence within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
Act. Cf. Local 140, United Furniture Workers of America,
CIO (Brooklyn Springs Corporation), 113 NLRB 815 (1955);
International Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO, et al.
(W. T. Smith Lumber Company), 116 NLRB 507 (1956).
Miguel A. Ortiz Martinez, an employee of Macal called
by the General Counsel, testified that on arriving at the
plant the early morning of May 28, he went across the
street to get a coke from a portable canteen. While there he
was approached by Union Agents Carmen Sampson and
Elias Castro. About what transpired Ortiz testified:
... the girl . . . opened up the coke and she ap-
proached me and she said to me, "I heard that you
were going to buy the factory." I did not know what to
tell her. So the bearded man [Castro] was already next
to her, which they talked together from across the
street to me. So I said to her, "I might buy the factory,
I might buy it." So she says to me, "Do you know
what you are going to get into it, do you know how to
operate that factory?" I says to her, "Yes, I know." So
then she says to me, "You had better think about it
before you do any move," and I says to her, "Why?"
Then she says to me, just to be careful, you might
come out in a coffin if you do go in there."
By this time Arturo Grant also was present. Sampson went
on to tell Ortiz that before going into the factory he might
have to fight with Grant. Ortiz said it didn't bother him.
Grant then said, "Be careful, something might happen to
you." Then Castro said, "Don't forget, sometimes you have
to walk alone in the street." Ortiz then said, "All right."
Castro said, "Okay, be careful."
According to Ortiz' further testimony Grant and his two
union cohorts were not allowing employees to go into
work. Ortiz was waiting for the supervisors to open up and
let him in . The union trio told him he could not go in to
work. Ortiz said he was going in. About 2 weeks previous-
ly, according to Ortiz' further testimony, Sampson and
Castro had given him a union leaflet telling inter alia about
"a professional strikebreaker" dying "upon attempting to
cross the picket line" of Respondent Union. They told him
"Here, read this carefully." They also told him, "You have
a nice truck 4 take care of it.... " Adding that it would
not look nice if something happened to it. Ortiz told them
nothing was going to happen to it. He was again warned
not to do any work for Macal.
After Ortiz finished his testimony a short recess was tak-
en. At the resumption of the hearing the General Counsel
asked for and was granted permission to recall Ortiz. At
this time Ortiz testified that as he was walking in the corri-
dor, Grant said to him that "The street is lonely at night."
About the immediate foregoing, Grant testified that Or-
tiz initiated the recess conversation speaking in a menacing
tone , wanting to know if Grant knew Mr. Chu Castro, who
wanted to talk to Grant. According to Grant he told Ortiz
4 Ortiz apparently maintained a trucking business in addition to his em-
ployment at Macal
UNION NACIONAL DE TRABAJADORES 433
that he did know Chu Castro, that he was a friend, and that
he was willing to talk to him about "whatever he wanted."
Grant further testified that he told Ortiz nothing else.
About the incident of May 28, Grant testified that when
Ortiz said that he was "very interested" in buying Macal,
Grant told Ortiz "It wasn't proper for him to get involved
in Macal for the simple reason that there were problems
there and there had been a petition filed with charges
against Macal." Ortiz replied that he would get into what-
ever he chose and that nobody was going to "impose" any-
thing on him. At this time Sampson and Castro were pre-
sent. Apparently Castro made some remark to which,
according to Grant, Ortiz replied as follows:
Mr. Ortiz replied to Mr. Castro that he was the type of
person who did not let anybody stop him in whatever
he wanted to do and that he had the people as well as
the power to do what he wanted to do in Macal, and
at the same time motioned towards his waist as if he
either had a revolver or a pistol. To that, Mr. Castro
replied that no one was going to work there unless
they were the employees from Macal, and in reply to
that he stated that he had his own employees to work
in Macal and that no one who had worked for Mr.
Calderon was going to work for him. It is the first
word that I have had that Mr. Ortiz was employed by
Macal as a machine I don't know what, because all the
time he was going around letting it be known that he
was the owner of Macal and that he was going to do
as he pleased.
Grant also testified that he did not believe that Sampson
said anything. Asked by his counsel if anyone had told
Ortiz that if he went into the plant to work he would be
taken out in a coffin, Grant made a rambling reply that did
not answer the question.
Jose Ramon Malabet, an employee first hired by Macal
on May 24, 1974, was called by the General Counsel and
testified that prior to starting time at the plant on the
morning of May 28, a group of about eight people, among
whom was Grant, approached him and a few others sitting
under a van waiting to go to work. Grant told them to
leave the premises because there was a strike-that "This is
Union Nacional and we are not responsible for what will
happen to you." Malabet said he was told to come to work.
Grant said "Get the hell out of here" in such a manner that
Malabet and the others were frightened and left to go to a
gas station nearby. Just prior to this someone apparently
called to Malabet from the plant. Malabet was about to
answer when Grant put his hand on Malabet's chest say-
ing, "Don't try to get in there, we already told you you
can't go in there."
Grant followed Malabet and his companions to the gas
station. There Malabet approached Grant and explained
he had been sent for and could not leave until he talked to
Flores, the assistant manager. Grant said if employees
went in "they would blow the top of [their] heads off."
Nonetheless Macal went back to the plant and tole Willy
(unidentified) "that the boys did not want to work" and
were leaving. At this point he was again accosted by Grant
(by himself now) who told him "You son-of-a-bitch didn't
we tell you you couldn't go in there." Malabet told him "I
was told to come to work . . . don't come and get wise
because you are alone now." Grant's reply was "This is
Union Nacional and we kill people. So leave." At this
point some policemen came out and Malabet left.
From his cross-examination it appears that policemen
were in the area at all times but that Malabet made no
complaint to them.
According to Grant he and the union people asked Mal-
abet and his companions if they were employed by Macal.
Learning that they were, Grant asked if they were aware of
the conflict that was going on between Macal and Union
Nacional-what the problem was. Macal said he didn't
and the conversation continued for about 15 or 20 minutes
in a conversational tone with the policemen in the immedi-
ate area.
As to the foregoing matters, Union Organizer Carmen
Sampson testified that in the company of Union Represen-
tatives Castro and Grant she arrived at the Macal plant
early in the morning on April 28.5 There they found about
four people waiting inside the plant gate to go to work. She
and her two companions walked on to the premises to talk
to the waiting employees. A policeman (who explained
"that he was there to protect the people that were there" )
accompanied them and "stayed by the side of Arturo
Grant" while he addressed the employees. After Grant's
explanation that there was a strike going on at the plant the
waiting employees "voluntarily walked out" and joined the
strike.
Sampson further testified that on the same occasion Or-
tiz arrived at the scene "in a very arrogant manner, provok-
ing manner." As to what took place with Ortiz, Sampson
testified as follows:
He stated that he was going to buy the plant and that
he was going to do as he saw fit and Elias Castro told
him that he could not and he explained to him the
problem, the conflict that we had at the plant and that
we were representing the workers. Mr. Ortiz told Elias
Castro that he had better be careful because he had a
cannon [sic] or a gun and he showed him by putting
his hand towards his waist and he said that he was
willing to blow the top of anybody's head and before
the day was over, two or three would fall.
Sampson also testified that Ortiz' "manner was so arro-
gant that Elias Castro felt very uncomfortable and they
almost came to blows." At no time did Sampson deny tell-
ing Ortiz that if he went into the plant he might come out
in a coffin.
Conclusions
As to the Ortiz matter, while Ortiz may have demonstrat-
ed some defiance toward the union representatives, I am
inclined to credit Ortiz in general and find that Respon-
dent Union through its representatives threatened him with
death on May 28, 1974, if he went to work for the Charging
Party. I also find that a similar threat had been implied
5 She later testified that it was either April or May 28 Then insisted that
it was April 28, explaining that she knew because that was the date of her
"anniversary " It is clear that she is talking about the May 28 incident
434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
about 2 weeks earlier in the leaflet Ortiz was asked to care-
fully read. Additional harm or damage was threatened on
May 28 in connection with Ortiz' truck and was also im-
plied in the remark made to him by Grant during a recess
at the hearing.
I also believe and find that regardless what specific
means Grant and company may have used to persuade
Malabet and the other employees to join in a strike against
Macal, the Union also indulged in threats and intimidation
exceeding the bounds of propriety in achieving their objec-
tive of preventing the employees from going to work. By
the foregoing conduct Respondent violated Section
8(b)(1)(A)•
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Union set forth in section III, above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the Compa-
ny described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Union Nacional de Trabajadores is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and
Arturo Grant is, and at all times material has been, its
agent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.
2. Macal Container Corporation is an employer within
the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and business ac-
tivities affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(7) of the Act.
3. By restraining and coercing employees of Macal as
found herein , Respondents have committed and are com-
nutting unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in certain
unfair labor practices I shall recommend an order that they
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac-
tion as specified below, which is necessary to remedy and
remove the effects of the unfair labor practices and to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
The Charging Party has referred to several previous
cases involving this Union as a Respondent and asks for a
much more extensive remedy than to date has been gener-
ally approved by the Board. Thus, in addition to a broad
order it requests: (1) that the Union be required to mail
individual notices in understandable language to each of
its employee members throughout Puerto Rico; (2) reim-
bursement by the Union of all attorneys fees and all costs
of litigation both to the Charging Party and the Board; and
(3) back wages to those employees who were prevented
from working as a result of Respondents' conduct. The
only one of these requests joined in by General Counsel
was the request for a broad order.
Similar extensive requests were made and treated at
length in two recently issued Administrative Law Judge
decisions .6 I shall restrict the scope of my recommenda-
tions to a broad order as requested by the General Counsel
and defer to the Board consideration of the remedy matter
in the light of all three cases.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
6 Union Nacional de Trabajadores and Comite Organizador Obreros en Hu-
elga Catalytic, Cases 24-CC-168 and 24-CB-877 [219 NLRB No. 661 issued
by Administrative Law Judge Goldberg on September 30, 1974 ; and Union
Nacional de Trabajadores and its agent, Alcides Serrano, Case 24-CB-885
issued by Administrative Law Judge Klein on September 26, 1974 (219
NLRB No 651.