Bacardi Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsOct 5, 1989

296 N.L.R.B. 1220 (N.L.R.B. 1989)

1220 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Bacardi Corporation and Congreso de Uniones In- DECISION dustriales de Puerto Rico . Case 24-CA-5838 October 5, 1989 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS CRACRAFT, HIGGINS, AND DEVANEY On July 26, 1989, Administrative Law Judge William N . Cates issued the attached decision. The Respondent and the General Counsel filed excep- tions, supporting briefs, and answering briefs.I The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge 's rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt his recommended Order as modified.2 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Re- spondent , Bacardi Corporation , Catano , Puerto Rico , its officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modi- fied. 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(b). "(b) Post at its Catano , Puerto Rico facility, in English and in Spanish , copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix. 116 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 24, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representative , shall be posted by the Respondent in both English and Spanish immedi- ately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecu- tive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material." STATEMENT OF THE CASE WILLIAM N . CATES, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried at San Juan , Puerto Rico, on May 24 and 25, 1989 . The charge was filed by Congreso de Uniones Industriales de Puerto Rico (the Union) on August 31, 1988.1 The complaint issued on October 14 alleges that Bacardi Corporation (Respondent or the Company) vio- lated Section 8(a)(5) and ( 1) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act (the Act) by failing to provide the Union with certain requested information relative to, and necessary for, the Union 's determination of the existence of collec- tive-bargaining agreement violations and the Union's continued processing of certain pending grievances. Re- spondent filed a timely answer to the complaint denying the violations of the Act alleged and putting in issue whether the Union's request to review the personnel files of 20 employees and certain other documents was exces- sively broad and whether the failure of Respondent to produce the files and other material was privileged by confidentiality requirements. On the entire record , including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses , and after due consideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION Respondent admitted in its answer that it is a corpora- tion engaged in the manufacture and nonretail sale and distribution of rum and related products and operates a facility located at Catano , Puerto Rico . It further admit- ted that during the normal course and conduct of its business operations it annually sold and shipped goods and products valued in excess of $50 ,000 directly to cus- tomers located outside the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Based on these admitted facts I find and conclude, as the complaint alleges, that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. I also find , as Respondent admits, that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Material Facts ' Although the Respondent entitled its answering brief as "cross excep- tions;" it is clear that the document is intended to serve as the Respond- ent's response to the General Counsel 's exceptions 2 We shall order the notice be posted in English and in Spanish be- cause the record indicates that a number of the Respondent 's Spanish- %peaking employees do not speak or comprehend English well enough to understand a notice in that language Harry E. Hopkins Jr., Esq., for the General Counsel. Jose A. Silva-Cofresi and Yldefonso Lopez, Esqs. (Fiddler, Gonzalez & Rodriguez), of San Juan , Puerto Rico, for the Respondent. Mr. Jose A. Figueroa, of Catano, Puerto Rico, for the Charging Party. The Union was certified as the collective-bargaining representative of Respondent 's employees in the follow- ing unit on October 10, 1979: Included : All regular hourly production and mainte- nance employees employed by the Employer at its distilleries and bottling plants at Barrio Palmas, Catano and Barrio Palo Seco, Toa Baja, Puerto Rico. Excluded : All executive, administrative , professional and confidential personnel , office clerical employ- ' All dates hereinafter are in 1988 unless otherwise indicated 296 NLRB No. 161 BACARDI CORP. 1221 ees, all salaried employees , office janitor, bartend- ers and bar waiters (cocteleros), executive drivers, messengers , foremen , guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. Respondent and the Union have been parties to succes- sive collective-bargaining agreements , the latest being ef- fective from September 6, 1987, to September 5, 1990. The unit described in that agreement differs slightly from the unit described above in that it is limited to the distill- ery and bottling plant at Barrio Palmas, Catano, Puerto Rico, and excludes , in addition to the classifications ex- cluded above, foremen and messengers. The critical provision of the collective-bargaining agreement which is the predicate for the instant case is found at article VI having to do with "Workers' Status."" In article VI workers are divided into three separate cat- egories; regular , probationary, and temporary. Regular employees are those recognized by Respondent to be such as of the date of the bargaining agreement and ac- corded seniority under the agreement . Probationary em- ployees are those, as defined by the agreement, who are hired for a probationary period not to exceed a total of 360 working hours. Once these employees have satisfac- torily completed this period they become regular em- ployees entitled to seniority from their first day of work and all other benefits accorded regular employees. Tem- porary workers are defined as those hired to perform intermittent work on a temporary basis . They may achieve regular status only if, and after, they complete "700 hours of work . . . during each year of the agree- ment during the life of the present agreement." Only then do they become entitled to seniority and benefits granted regular employees. In late May and early June the Union became aware of two situations involving employees claiming regular status that had not been accorded them. Grievances were filed on behalf of these two, Luis Angel Cruz and Jesus M. Torres-Rivera, and the Union contended that these employees having worked the necessary hours were enti- tled to regular employee status and benefits . The matter was discussed between Jose Alberto Figueroa, vice presi- dent of the Union, and Herminio Gonzalez, Respondent's industrial relations administrator , and Hugo Benitez, Re- spondent's human resources director, on May 31 and June 2. Respondent 's position was that the two men were hired as temporaries and were not entitled to treat- ment as regular employees . Figueroa testified herein that at a meeting with Gonzalez and Benitez on June 2 he asked to see the personnel file of Torres-Rivera but the Company refused. However, Benitez did allow Figueroa to review Torres-Rivera's work contract which reflected that Torres-Rivera was hired on a temporary basis. However, Figueroa contended the Torres-Rivera work contract showed a violation of the bargaining agreement, and he protested to Benitez who demanded the work contract be handed back to him saying that "that" was why he had not wanted to give it to him in the first place. The dispute concerning the work status of the two em- ployees was not resolved , and on June 6 the Union filed requests for arbitration under the bargaining agreement. On the same day Figueroa wrote Benitez regarding the above grievance matters as well as two others involving the work status provisions of article VI. Benitez respond- ed by letter dated June 7 in which he denied any con- tract violations contending again specifically with respect to Torres-Rivera that he was a temporary employee. Gonzalez also wrote Figueroa on June 7 enclosing a copy of an employment contract for an employee re- quested by Figueroa in a meeting between the two the day before. Gonzalez also forwarded to Figueroa on the same day the employee seniority list as of June 7. On June 21 Figueroa wrote Benitez and requested that he be provided with copies of the work contracts of the last 20 persons who became permanent employees. Beni- tez replied by letter dated June 24 in which he protested offensive language allegedly in Figueroa 's letter but did not respond to the request therein . The work contracts were not provided even though Figueroa repeated in a letter to Benitez dated June 30 the request that Benitez send him "what was requested at the earliest possible time ." And again on August 11 in a letter to Robert Gnibus, Benitez' successor at Respondent , Figueroa re- minded Respondent of his June 21 request for the work contracts of the last 20 persons who became permanent. They still were not provided. On August 31, the same day the Union filed the charge in the instant case, Figueroa again wrote Gnibus and this time asked for the "folders for the last 4 years wherein new personnel has [sic] been employed , whether the employees have been designated to occupy a position in the bargaining unit or not," including "even those who did not approve the probationary period." Figueroa also asked to be provided the "payrolls" for examination so that he could determine what he could copy to estab- lish if "there is any violation of the collective bargaining agreement ." Respondent answered by letter from its counsel , Jose A. Silva Confresi, dated September 13 in which Confresi stated that the August 31 letter was not received by Respondent until September 9. Confresi re- ferred to a Respondent letter to Figueroa dated August 26 in which Respondent asked what information Fi- gueroa required from the contracts of the last 20 persons who became regular employees of the Company, "so as to see if the same was relevant ," and if relevant Re- spondent would provide them . The letter further stated that "we are in the best disposition to cooperate with you as to the information requested if and when we are shown that the same is relevant , and it does not invade the right to privacy of our employees." Figueroa responded by letter dated September 14, de- nying that he had ever received a letter from Respond- ent dated August 26,2 and protesting that he had previ- ously explained the relevance of the requested informa- tion to Benitez, Gonzales and Gnibus. He added, howev- er, that the Union wanted the information because it un- derstood "that the Company could be violating the rights that infringe the rights acquired by them in the Collective Bargaining Agreement specifically in Article 2 No August 26 letter of Respondent was produced in record by any party in the case 1222 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD VI." Confresi replied for Respondent by letter dated September 26 noting that Figueroa's letter was not re- ceived until September 22. Confresi, replying to Figuer- oa's claim of not receiving the August 26 letter of Re- spondent, invoked the legal principle that a letter ad- dressed and duly mailed would be presumed to have been received in due time. With respect to Figueroa's contention that the Union understood that contract rights were violated, Confresi stated that he did not un- derstand what rights Figueroa referred to, "whose rights they are and finally to what you refer by acquired rights, specifically when the Union has not even filed an arbitra- tion case." He concluded by denying that Respondent had at any time "refused to provide information request- ed by the Union in good faith and that is relevant."s By letter dated September 28 to Silva Confresi Fi- gueroa clearly and precisely stated his requests for infor- mation and the reasons therefor. More specifically, he asked: 1. To peruse the Personnel Folder of the last 20 persons who have been designated to occupy posi- tions of the Bargaining Unit at Bacardi. 2. Copy of the Work Contract of the Last 20 per- sons who have been designated to occupy positions of the Bargaining Unit at Bacardi. 3. To examine the payrolls of the last 20 persons who have been designated to occupy positions of the Bargaining Unit at Bacardi. Figueroa explained in the letter that the reason for the request was that "we understand that the Company has a policy to contract employees issuing to them temporary contracts; when the original intention' was and is to fill permanent positions." This, Figueroa further explained, violated the spirit of the collective-bargaining agreement at article VI, sections 16 and 17, and he wanted to inves- tigate it. It is this request in the letter of September 28 upon which the General Counsel relies, as the complaint alleges, to establish the Union's specific request for rele- vant information. Silva Cofresi responded by letter dated October 10 stating that Respondent was in the best position to give the Union information which is relevant and which does not violate the rights of privacy of its employees, and re- questing that the Union advise Respondent "what infor- mation you want from the personnel folder and/or from the work contracts and/or from the payrolls so that the Company can determine if same is relevant." He added that if the information requested was relevant and did not violate the privacy rights of the employees the Com- pany would furnish it. It is this response of Respondent and the undisputed fact that the Union's request has not been complied with that the General Counsel contends establishes the violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act alleged. "Quotations herein are based upon interpretations of the originals which were written in Spanish Interpretations differ slightly in the sepa- rate versions of the letters submitted in the record by the respective par- ties. The differences are so slight I find them to be immaterial in overall effect. B. Arguments of the Parties The parties appear to be in agreement on the govern- ing case law. Accordingly , in very briefly highlighting the parties ' positions , I shall not make reference to the cases cited in their briefs. Counsel for the General Counsel , in essence , contends the Union made a clear and specific request for relevant information and that the Respondent unlawfully refused, and continues to refuse , to provide such information. Counsel for the General Counsel asserts the relevance of the information is established by the fact it was needed to process specific grievances and to investigate compli- ance with specific portions of the collective -bargaining agreement between the parties . Counsel for the General Counsel asserts the Respondent 's contention that it did not know the relevance of certain of the information sought was nothing more than a frivolous attempt by it to disguise its unlawful refusal to provide the requested information. Counsel for the General Counsel also contends that Respondent 's asserted claim of confidentiality with re- spect to certain of the requested information is a sham. In this regard , counsel for the General Counsel asserts the Respondent never raised an issue with respect to confidentiality until after the unfair labor practice charge herein was filed. Counsel for the General Counsel fur- ther argues the Respondent never advised the Union of the specific privacy concerns it had in mind when it re- fused to provide the Union the complete uncensored per- sonnel files of certain of its employees . Counsel for the General Counsel asserts such general claims as the Re- spondent made with respect to confidentiality are insuffi- cient to justify its withholding the information requested by the Union. In general , counsel for Respondent contends the Union never satisfactorily established the relevance of the infor- mation it requested . Notwithstanding this failure , counsel for Respondent asserts it "is willing to provide ... the employment contracts [and] the payroll actions" for the employees the Union requested . Counsel for the Re- spondent, however, contends it is not obligated to pro- vide , nor will it provide , the complete personnel records of the employees in question because the files contain confidential documents . Respondent argues "[a] 'wall to wall' disclosure of the complete personnel files violates Respondent 's employees privacy rights, and is in no way justifiable under the facts surrounding this case." Finally, Respondent contends it has always been willing , and re- mains willing, to furnish relevant nonconfidential infor- mation from the personnel files and asserts its actions in the instant case do not constitute an unfair labor practice. C. Analysis and Conclusions The principle has long been established that an em- ployer is under a duty to provide a union which repre- sents the employer's employees with information request- ed by the union which is relevant and necessary for the proper performance of the union's duties in representing the unit employees. NLRB Y. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967); NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149 (1956) This duty extends not just to information which is BACARDI CORP. useful and relevant for the purposes of contract negotia- tions but also to that which is necessary to informed ad- ministration of a collective-bargaining agreement. Safeway Stores, 252 NLRB 1323 (1980); Westinghouse Electric Corp., 239 NLRB 106 (1978). Relevancy is to be measured with a liberal yardstick . Acme Industrial Co., supra at 437 . Necessity for the information is not a guide- line in itself but is directly related to relevance . Curtiss- Wright Corp. v. NLRB, 347 F.2d 61, 69 (3d Cir. 1965). All possible ways in which requested information may be useful may not be foreseen , so it is only necessary to es- tablish the probability that the information will be of use to the union in fulfilling its statutory representational duties . Acme Industrial, supra at 437. Wage and related data is presumptively relevant and requires no showing of precise relevance . Curtiss-Wright, supra at 69 . And requested data which concerns condi- tions of employment within the bargaining unit is pre- sumptively relevant . Pfizer, Inc., 268 NLRB 916 (1984). And data regarding the discipline of unit employees is deemed relevant information . General Dynamics Corp., 270 NLRB 829 ( 1984). However, the duty to provide information is not abso- lute, and the Supreme Court held in Detroit Edison Co. v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301 (1979), that there must be a balanc- ing of the interests of each side, the employer 's in retain- ing the information and the union 's in obtaining it. Thus, confidentiality where adequately established has been held to be a valid basis for declining to fully produce union requested data . See Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 252 NLRB 368 (1980); General Dynamics Corp., 268 NLRB 1432 (1984). Considering the instant case in light of the foregoing principles it is initially clear that the Union's request of September 28 was specific and understandable both with respect to the type of information requested and the reason for its relevance and production . Since it was the Union's contention that Respondent was hiring tempo- rary employees instead of probationary employees and using them for longer periods of time while avoiding the necessity of granting them benefits under the collective- bargaining agreement, the work contracts of the last 20 employees hired for bargaining unit work would clearly be relevant to this issue. Such contracts would establish whether the employee was hired as a temporary employ- ee or a probationary employee . The Union had previous- ly been provided one such employment contract. And the Board has held that extra employee-employer con- tractual agreements involving bargaining unit employees are relevant information subject to production to a bar- gaining representative upon request . See Kansas Educa- tion Assn., 275 NLRB 638 (1985). The Union's extending the request in this case to the last 20 employees hired provides the Union with a sampling from which a pat- tern might be disclosed which would either confirm or refute the Union's contentions . Respondent at the hear- ing asserted through counsel that it was always ready to provide the employment contracts as well as the payroll records . The fact remains that it did not provide the Union the requested information within a reasonable period of time, and the letter of its counsel to the Union on October 10 did not suggest that the Union would be 1223 allowed to see the work contracts or the payrolls them- selves . Rather, Respondent 's counsel asked that the Union specify what in the contracts and payrolls the Union wanted . I therefore find that the request was for relevant information and that Respondent 's refusal to provide it constituted a breach of its bargaining obliga- tions under Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, as alleged.4 I reach a similar result with respect to the Union's re- quest to examine the "payrolls" of the last 20 employees doing bargaining unit work. Such pay records clearly are relevant to establishing the amount of work performed by such employees , and that directly correlates to the number of hours worked and their consequent eligibility for regular employment status . Disclosure of these records for the last 20 employees would again reflect on the existence of a pattern by Respondent which might be indicative of an attempt to evade the intent of the provi- sion of the bargaining agreement regarding the use of temporary employees . That Respondent refused to pro- vide the Union with the requested records is not disput- ed. I therefore find that the failure to provide the Union with these requested records amounted to a violation of Section 8(a)(5) by Respondent. There remains the issue of Respondent 's obligation to provide the Union with the personnel folders of the last 2C individuals hired for bargaining unit work. Surrenders of personnel folders to a union in response to a request for relevant information has been required on occasion by the Board . See, e .g., Bloomsburg Craftsmen, 276 NLRB 400 (1985). In the cited case the dispute regarded discipline of an employee, and finding a violation of Sec- tion 8(a)(5) by the employer in refusing to surrender the file, it was noted with respect to the relevance of the file that what it might not contain might be as material as what it did contain . The instant case, however, does not involve discipline , and the relevancy of the entire per- sonnel file is not readily apparent , nor is the absence of any particular material or item from the file shown to be significant. In his closing argument the General Counsel claimed that all Figueroa wanted the personnel files for was to peruse them to see what they contained since he was un- aware of what such files contained . Obviously, a file may contain presumptively relevant information bearing on wage rates , promotions , demotions , transfers , disciplinary records, and so forth. However, such files may also con- tain information of a confidential nature, as Respondent here claims . Respondent contends the files contain medi- cal information and psychological test materials. Such materials have been found to be confidential by the Board . See, e .g., Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 261 NLRB 27 ( 1982); Borden Chemical, 261 NLRB 64 (1982); 4 In reaching this conclusion I have given full consideration to the ar- gument of Respondent that the Union was inconsistent in exactly what it was requesting However , whatever ambiguity existed in what the Union was asking for I find that ambiguity was resolved in the letter of Septem- ber 28 which contained clear and specific requests It is Respondent 's fail- ure to provide the information requested in that letter which is the basis for the violation alleged , not its failure to accede to some prior requests of the Union Any inconsistency in the requests by the Union under these circumstances is immaterial for Respondent is charged only with failure to comply with the last request. 1224 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Colgate-Palmolive Co., 261 NLRB 90 (1982). The Union's blanket request for the complete personnel files without specifying exactly how the contents of the files may be relevant may constitute a request for relevant informa- tion to the extent that such files contain information rele- vant to all aspects of the employment of the employees whose files were requested . It is difficult to imagine what information an employee personnel file would contain that would not relate to conditions of employment. However , where a file contains both confidential and nonconfidential material only a blanket refusal by the employer to provide any of the requested information constitutes a violation of the Act. See Tritac Corp., 286 NLRB 522 (1987). Here Respondent did not issue a blanket refusal to pro- vide the personnel files. Rather, it asked what in the files the Union wanted . This provided a basis for negotiation between Respondent and the Union for providing either specific documents from the files or the providing of the file itself after sanitized to exclude confidential employee materials . Since there was no blanket refusal here in the Respondent 's October 10 letter I find no refusal to bar- gain and no violation of Section 8(a)(5) and ( 1) of the Act by Respondent in refusing to turn over the complete employee personnel files to the Union. In accordance with my above findings , I make the fol- lowing CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Bacardi 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 (7) of the Act. 2. Congreso de Uniones Industriales de Puerto Rico is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. The following constitutes a unit appropriate for col- lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: Included : All regular hourly production and mainte- nance employees employed by the Employer at its distilleries and bottling plants at Barrio Palmas , Catano and Barrio Palo Seco, Toa Baja, Puerto Rico. Excluded : All executive, administrative , professional and confidential personnel, office clerical employ- ees all salaried employees, office janitor, bartend- ers and bar waiters (cocteleros), executive drivers, messengers, foremen , guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. 4. The Union is now , and has been at all material times, the exclusive bargaining representative of all em- ployees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 5. By refusing to supply the Union with requested em- ployment contracts and payroll records for the last 20 employees hired for bargaining unit work prior to Sep- tember 28 , 1988, Respondent refused to bargain in good faith with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the aforesaid unit, and thereby did vio- late Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 7. Respondent did not violate the Act in any other manner alleged in the complaint. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices , it is recommended that it be or- dered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain af- firmative action designed to effectuate the purposes of the Act. Having found that Respondent failed to provide the Union with the work contracts and the payroll data on the last 20 employees hired for the bargaining unit, it will be recommended that it be ordered to supply such information to the Union. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law, and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed5 ORDER The Respondent , Bacardi Corporation , its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Failing and refusing to supply the Union with the employment contracts and payroll data of the last 20 em- ployees hired prior to September 28, 1988, for bargaining work in the following collective -bargaining unit: Included : All regular hourly production and mainte- nance employees employed by the Employer at its distilleries and bottling plants at Barrio Palmas, Catano and Barrio Palo Seco, Toa Baja, Puerto Rico. Excluded: All executive , administrative , professional and confidential personnel , office clerical employ- ees all salaried employees , office janitor , bartend- ers and bar waiters (cocteleros), executive drivers, messengers , foremen , guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining , or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Supply the Union with the employment contracts and payroll data of the last 20 employees hired for the bargaining unit as requested in the Union's letter of Sep- tember 28, 1988. (b) Post at its Catano, Puerto Rico facility copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of the S If 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 Nation- al 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 " 6If 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 Nation- Continued BACARDI CORP. notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 24 , after being signed by Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediate- ly upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other materi- al. (c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps Respondent has taken to comply. al 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 POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or- dered us to post and abide by this notice. 1225 WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to supply the Congreso de Uniones Industriales de Puerto Rico with information re- quested by it in its letter of September 28, 1988 , regard- ing the employment contracts and payroll data for the last 20 employees hired for the bargaining unit: Included : All regular hourly production and mainte- nance employees employed by the Employer at its distilleries and bottling plants at Barrio Palmas, Catano and Barrio Palo Seco, Toa Baja, Puerto Rico. Excluded : All executive , administrative , professional and confidential personnel , office clerical employ- ees all salaried employees, office janitor , bartend- ers and bar waiters (cocteleros), executive drivers, messengers , foremen , guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with , restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL supply the Union the information that it re- quested in its letter dated September 28, 1988 , for the employment contracts and payroll data of the last 20 em- ployees hired for the bargaining unit. BACARDI CORPORATION