Hotel La Concha

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 20, 1963

144 N.L.R.B. 754 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

754 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
concerning representation. Those same pertinent facts which lead to the conclusion
that he did not, standing alone as trustee with "no organization," have the standing
of the old certified union, must necessarily require a finding that in the total circum-
stances his mere existence fell short of raising a real question concerning repre-
sentation. In the light of the factual findings compelled by the record in the Dorado
Beach Hotel case, 1 can only conclude that if there was a rival claim for recognition
facing Manager Gralirena on March 30, 1962, it was really the voice of Teamsters
Local 901, muted at that time. The Midwest Piping rule does not apply where
at best one of the two competing unions is one which was recently defeated in
a Board-conducted election. I shall, therefore, recommend dismissal of the Section
8(a) (2) allegation of the complaint.
3. Coercion by the Independiente
I shall also recommend that the complaint against the Independiente be dis-
missed. According to the General Counsel, by the act of its agents in forcing the
Company to deal with the Independiente at all, that union improperly restrained
the employees in their freedom to choose their own bargaining agent. Again,
although no exact theory was articulated, I take it to be that inasmuch as the em-
ployees already had chosen, less than 12 months earlier, Local 610, AFL-CIO, as
their exclusive bargaining agent, the Independiente had no right to use the com-
pulsive force of strike action to impose a new and different representative upon
them. This argument looks like the other side of the coin, as it were, of the
General Counsel's overall attack upon the strike settlement made between the
Company and the Independiente on March 30. Was the Independiente really a
new and different union from the one certified by the Board the previous August?
Can it be said that with apparently all of the members and officers of old Local
610 shifting bodily into the Independiente, and with all the employees on duty that
evening standing resolutely and solidly on the picket line, that union coerced them
illegally when it spoke for them? Regardless of the avenue of approach, I see
nothing illegal in Grajirena's strike settlement with the Independiente's representa-
tives that day. The Company had a right, under the total circumstances, to nego-
tiate with Maldonado and Delgado over the reinstatement of the four employees.
And those same considerations which are pertinent to the dismissal of the Section
8(a) (5) and Section 8(a) (2) allegations lead to the conclusion that there was
nothing wrong in the Independiente representing the strikers and speaking on their
behalf to urge reinstatement of their fellow employees.
RECOMMENDATION
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and conclusions , I recommend that the
complaint herein be dismissed in its entirety.
Landrum Mills Hotel Corporation d/b/a Hotel La Concha and
Union de Trabajadores de la Industria Gastronomica de Puerto
Rico, Local 610, Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bar-
tenders International Union , AFL-CIO. Case No. 24-CA-1613.
September 20, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 31, 1962, Trial Examiner Thomas A. Ricci issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in
its entirety, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. There-
after, the General Counsel and the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.
144 NLRB No. 71.
HOTEL LA CONCHA 755
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was conunitted. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme-
diate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts only those findings, conclusions and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner which are consistent with this
Decision and Order.
As more fully indicated in the Intermediate Report, Local 610 was
certified in 1959 as the statutory representative of the employees in a
unit of croupiers and doormen working in the gambling casino at
Respondent's Hotel La Concha, San Juan, Puerto Rico, and executed
its most recent 3-year collective-bargaining agreement with the Re-
spondent on January 5, 1962. Shortly thereafter certain pseudo-
schismatic events took place within the ranks of the contracting un-
ion. Upon receiving from both emerging factions claims of contract
rights to the checked-off dues and to administer the contract by the
processing of grievances, Respondent filed an interpleader action in
the local courts, and, when a grievance within the contract unit sub-
sequently arose, Respondent notified both factions and insisted that
the two groups decide between themselves who would represent the
employees in the matter. Allegations of violations of Section 8 (a) (5),
(2), and (1) are based on this conduct.
The Trial Examiner, who had also heard the evidence in the Dorado
Beach Hotel and the Miramar Cliarterhouse cases,' incorporated in his
Intermediate Report herein substantial portions of his reports in
those cases and, for the reasons set forth therein, found none of the
violations alleged. We agree with the Trial Examiner that Respond-
ent did not, by the above conduct, violate Section 8(a) (2) of the Act.
However, we base our finding upon the reasoning explicated in our
decision in Miramar Charterhouse,2 rather than upon that set forth
in the Intermediate Report herein. We also find for the reasons more
fully set forth in that same decision, and contrary to the Trial
Examiner, that when Respondent denied to Local 610 the right to
administer its current collective-bargaining agreement and the right
to process grievances thereunder with a committee chosen by it, Re-
spondent withheld from Local 610 that recognition which Respondent
was obligated by statute to accord to the certified and contracting
Because they all involved the same Intraunion upheaval, the records in Dorado Beach
Hotel, Case No 24-RC-1726, and Hotel Corporation of Puerto Rico, Inc, d/b/a Miramar
Charterhouse, Cases Nos. 24-CA-1606 and 24-CB-424, were incorporated into the record
herein
2 Hotel Corporation of Puerto Rico, Inc., d/b/a Miramar Charterhouse, 144 NLRB 728
For the reasons stated by him in that case, Member Leedom would find a violation of Sec-
tion 8(a) (2) in this case See also Dorado Beach Hotel, 144 NLRB 712. Both of these
decisions are issued simultaneously herewith.
727-083-64-vol 144-49
756 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employee representative.' Accordingly, we find that, by such conduct,
Respondent committed a technical violation of Section 8(a) (5) and
(1) of the Act .4
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent technically has violated Section
8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act by failing to accord exclusive recognition
to the statutory bargaining representative of its employees in the
appropriate unit, we shall order that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action which we determine is necessary
to effectuate the policies of the Act. Because of the absence of a
showing of bad faith and of any indication that other unfair labor
practices may be anticipated from past conduct, we shall not order
that Respondent cease and desist from commission of any other un-
fair labor practices.'
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and upon the entire record
in this case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Unions involved are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The following employees of Respondent constitute a unit ap-
propriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All croupiers and doormen employed at Respondent's casino lo-
cated in its Hotel La Concha in San Juan, Puerto Rico, exclusive of
all other employees.
4. At all times since April 10, 1959, Local 610 has been the exclusive
and certified representative of all employees in the appropriate unit
"We find no merit in the Respondent's contention that the Board should not assert
jurisdiction because the unit, which is covered by the Board certification and the current
contract , consists of a gambling operation which is closely regulated by local government
See, eg, Crumley Hotel, Inc., d/b/a Holiday Hotel, 134 NLRB 113 , 116, wherein the
Board approved exclusion of casino employees from the hotel employee unit , not on a
policy basis but because of their differing interests . Also, see, Hairah's Club, 143 NLRB
1356; Thunderbird Hotel Company , 144 NLRB 84. Furthermore , Respondent , having
consented to the appropriateness of the unit for purposes of a consent election and
certification by the Board , has no standing to urge this as a defense to 8(a ) ( 5) conduct.
Member Leedom believes it is appropriate to assert jurisdiction in this case because the
Respondent is principally engaged in operating a transient hotel, and its gambling opera-
tions directly involved in this proceeding are incidental to the hotel operations . In these
circumstances his position in Harrah's Club, supra, is distinguishable
4 Member Fanning would dismiss the 8 ( a) (5) allegation in the circumstances of this
case To treat , as the Respondent Company did , conflicting claims for checked -off dues
by Interpleader , and to request that the conflicting claimants themselves determine who
( whether a committee or an individual) should represent a grievant , does not in Mr.
Fanning 's view constitute a refusal to bargain with the certified bargaining representative
in the circumstances of this case.
5 See Miramar Charterhouse, footnote 2, supra.
HOTEL LA CONCHA 757
for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (a) of the Act.
5. By failing to accord exclusive recognition to the statutory bar-
gaining representative of the aforesaid employees, Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act.
6. By said acts Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices with-
in the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Landrum Mills Hotel Corporation d/b/a Hotel La Concha, San Juan,
Puerto Rico, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from failing to accord to Union de Trabajadores
de la Industria Gastronomica de Puerto Rico, Local 610, Hotel and
Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, AFL-
CIO, exclusive recognition as collective-bargaining representative of
its employees in the appropriate unit, in the manner found above.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Recognize and, upon request, bargain collectively with Union
de Trabajadores de la Industria Gastronomica de Puerto Rico, Local
610, Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International
Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining agent in the appro-
priate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
or other conditions of employment.
(b) Post as its hotel in Puerto Rico, and at all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 6 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the Twenty-fourth Region, shall, after being
duly signed by the Respondent's representatives, be posted by said
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are customarily posted
at the Hotel La Concha in Puerto Rico. Reasonable steps shall be
0In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words "A Decision and Order" the words "A
Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
758 DECISIONS OE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-fourth Region,
in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith.
MEMBER JENKINS took no part in the consideration of the above
-Decision and Order.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To ALL EILI'I oYEEs
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT engage in any acts depriving Union de Traba-
jadores de la Industria Gastronomica de Puerto Rico, Local 610,
Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International
Union, AFL-CIO, of the right to act as the certified and exclusive
representative of employees in the bargaining unit described
below.
WE WILL recognize and, upon request, bargain collectively with
Union de Trabaj adores de la Industria Gastronomica de Puerto
Rico, Local 610, Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders
International Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative
of all the employees in the bargaining unit, with respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment. The bargaining unit is:
All croupiers and doormen employed at the Employer's
casino located in its Hotel La Concha in San Juan, Puerto
Rico, exclusive of all other employees.
LANDRUM MILLS HOTEL CORPORATION
D/B/A HOTEL LA CONCIIA,
Employer.
Dated----- ----------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional
Office, P.O. Box 11007 , Fernandez Juncos Station , Santurce , Puerto
Rico, 00910 , Telephone No. 724-7171, if they have any question con-
cerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
HOTEL LA CONCHA 759
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A hearing in this proceeding was held on November 14 and 15 , 1962 , before Trial
Examiner Thomas A. Ricci in Santurce , Puerto Rico. The issues litigated are whether
the Landrum Mills Hotel Corporation , d/b/a Hotel La Concha, herein called the
Respondent or the Company , violated Section 8(a)(1), (2 ), and (5 ) of the statute.
At the hearing Union de Trabajadores de la Industria Gastronomica de Puerto Rico,
Independiente , herein called the Independiente , moved and. was permitted to intervene
in the proceeding . All parties , including the Respondent , the Independiente, and
Union de Trabajadores de la Industria Gastronomica de Puerto Rico, Local 610, Hotel
and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO, herein
called Local 610, AFL-CIO, appeared at the hearing and were afforded full op-
portunity to be heard , to examine and cross -examine witnesses , and to introduce
evidence bearing on the issues . The Respondent filed a brief after the close of the
hearing.
As part of its defense to the complaint, the Respondent offered into evidence the
entire transcript of testimony and all the exhibits received in evidence in recent hear-
ings in two other Board proceedings , Dorado Beach Hotel, Case No. 24-RC-1726,
and Hotel Corporation of Puerto Rico, Inc., d/b/a Miramar Charter house, Cases
Nos. 24-CA-1606 and 24-CB-434. Pursuant to Board Order , and by designation
of the Chief Trial Examiner , I acted as Trial Examiner in each of these two
other proceedings . The General Counsel, the Respondent , and the Independiente
stipulated that the transcript and exhibits of each of these cases be considered as
evidence , testimonial and documentary , received in this proceeding 1
Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses in this case
and in the Dorado Beach Hotel and Miramar Charterhouse cases, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Landrum Mills Hotel Corporation is organized under the laws of the Common-
wealth of Puerto Rico, and is engaged in the operation of a hotel called La Concha
in Santurce , Puerto Rico. During the past 12 months, a representative period, the
Company provided hotel and other services to the public valued in excess of $500,000.
During the same period it purchased materials and other goods necessary for the
conduct of its hotel business valued in excess of $50,000 and which originated from
places outside the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Less than 25 percent of the
Hotel La Concha guests reside in the hotel for a period of a month or more I find
that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act , and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to exercise jurisdiction
in this proceeding.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issue presented
This case involves essentially a charge that the Company refused to bargain with
the exclusive majority representative of its employees-croupiers and doormen-
working in its gambling casino In 1959 there had been an election among these
employees , a union had been selected by a majority, and regular collective bargain-
ing had ensued ; the last contract between the parties was executed on January 5,
1962. The union as then constituted was a Puerto Rican local labor organization
affiliated with Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union,
AFL-CIO, whose main office is in Cincinnati , Ohio. I refer to it here as Local 610,
AFL-CIO. Two months later, in March , a trustee was appointed to govern the
affairs of Local 610; in consequence the Independiente , a distinct labor organiza-
tion, came into existence.
Shortly thereafter the Company was presented with conflicting demands, one by
the agents of the Independiente , and one by the new trustee calling himself the prin-
cipal officer of "Local 610, AFL-CIO," making direct claims for payment of the dues
checkoffs provided for in the curent collective-bargaining agreement . The Respond-
ent forwarded the money to neither of them ; instead, in an interpleader action, it
deposited the dues with the local court and requested that tribunal to decide which
1 Mr Torres , the attorney for Local 610, AFL-CIO , the Charging Party, had left the
hearing room when the stipulation was made and therefore did not join in it
760 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
party was rightfully entitled to receive it. About the same time a grievance arose and
the Company invited representatives of both the trustee and the Independiente to
participate in any discussion of its merits. It asked them to decide who should be the
representative of the employee involved in the grievance.
The principal factual assertion upon which the General Counsel's entire theory of
illegal action rests is that the trustee, Ramos Ducos, spoke for the union which had
originally won the election and signed the January contract. The complaint alleges
that in refusing to honor his demand for contract dues the Company refused to
bargain with the accredited representative of the gambling casino employees; it also
alleges that in refusing to process the employee grievance with Ramos' agent, to
the exclusion of any representative of the Independiente, the Company further
ignored its statutory duty to deal with the proper union. All this, according to the
complaint, constituted violations of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act. Under separate
and distinct paragraphs of the complaint, these same acts are also alleged to con-
stitute illegal assistance to the Independiente in violation of Section 8(a) (2).
Although denying that it committed any unfair labor practices, the Respondent
does not, and indeed cannot, contradict the precise assertion that it refused to accord
exclusive recognition to the Ramos group under the name of Local 610, AFL-CIO.
On April 24 it received Ramos' demand for contract dues checkoffs pursuant to the
contract; 6 days later it placed the money in the hands of the court and asked it to
decide whether the trustee's demand was valid. I can only view this reaction as a
rejection of the demand in the name of Local 610, AFL-CIO. As to the grievance
situation which then developed, Jose Nevedo, a croupier steward, asked for a meet-
ing to discuss the matter as a representative of Local 610, AFL-CIO, the Company
conceded it knew he was speaking for such an organization. It advised him, how-
ever, that "before going into the consideration of the object of same, the representa-
tive of both Unions" (Local 610, AFL-CIO, and the Independiente) must first agree
upon who should speak for the aggrieved employee. Again a week later the Com-
pany personnel chief told Nestor Maldonado, of the Independiente, and Miguel
Mendez, agent of Trustee Ramos, "that a meeting of the Grievance Committee is not
appropriate until the two unions reach an agreement to designate the representatives
who may compose the Committee." And on June 14 the company officer directly
rejected Ramos' personal attempt to negotiate the grievance and referred him without
further ado to the Puerto Rican Department of Labor.
The charge was filed on June 14 and on the 28th the Respondent's attorney sub-
mitted a written statement of position to the Regional Director. After relating the
facts substantially as set out here, the statement closed with: . the position of
the employer is that . . . it . . is willing to bargain with whichever group turns
out to have the right to administer said contract. The employer feels that he is not
in a position to make this decision " On July 18 the Company filed a petition re-
questing the Board to hold an election among the employees (Case No. 24-RM-83).
The Regional Director dismissed the petition; on appeal the Board reversed this rul-
ing and reinstated the petition; it is now in abeyance pending determination of the
merits of this complaint. Entirely apart from the foregoing evidence, Respondent's
counsel conceded at the hearing and in his brief that the Company saw in the situation
confronting it in the spring of 1962 a question concerning representation and chose
to have the Board resolve it.
The Respondent's refusal to recognize Local 610, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
majority representative being thus clear on the facts, the question is whether the sur-
rounding circumstances as revealed by the record as a whole are such as to support
the conclusion that the Respondent's position was motivated by a bad-faith rejection
of the principle of collective bargaining, or whether, instead, there was sufficient
justification for it to withhold recognition from either claiming group. The further
allegation that by this same conduct the Respondent also gave illegal assistance to
the Independiente, and thereby also violated Section 8(a)(2) of the Act, is but
another aspect of the same basic issue.
B. The evidence 2
The evidence assertedly supporting the defense appears in the transcript and ex-
hibits of the Dorado Beach Hotel and Miramar Charterhouse cases. The immedi-
A separate and distinct defense contention of the Respondent is that the unit set out
in the complaint is not appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes within the broad
intendment of the Act as a whole. Evidence was therefore received concerning the laws
and regulations of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico on the subject of legal gambling
casinos on the island and the impact of such rules upon the conditions of employment of
HOTEL LA CONCHA 761
ately following sections of this report, lettered C, D, E, F, G, and H, constitute my
findings and conclusions based upon the record of the Dorado Beach Hotel case.
Section I, below, constitutes my findings and conclusions upon those portions of
the Miramar Charterhouse case record which I deem pertinent to the issues to be
resolved here.
C. The history of hotel and restaurant employee organization in Puerto Rico
In 1928 there came into existence in Puerto Rico a labor organization representing
hotel and restaurant employees throughout the island. It was called Union de
Trabajadores de la Industria Gastronomica de Puerto Rico. In December 1957 this
union affiliated with Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International
Union, AFL-CIO, as its Local 610; it was thereafter called Local 610.
For reasons that do not appear on this record there came a time in about 1960
when the affairs of Local 610 were placed, by International President Miller, under
control of a trustee. Between that time and March 1962, when the events which
gave rise to this case occurred, there were a succession of trustees sent by the
International president to Puerto Rico. The story as detailed in this record starts
with February 1961, when the trustee was a Mr. Loew; in that month an executive
board was elected by the union members, and one Thomas Sola was elected by
the members to be president of that board. The following month Miller sent
John Dennis to Puerto Rico to serve as acting secretary-treasurer, under the steward-
ship of Mr. Loew.
In June of 1961, Manuel Parron arrived from the States as trustee to replace
Mr. Loew. He set aside the election of officers and removed Sola as president.
Apparently the membership was satisfied with Mr. Loew for there resulted a general
protest against Parron, the employees threatening disaffiliation from the AFL-CIO
if Parton remained. He was, however, successful in persuading the employees to
permit him to remain; he announced he would leave the executive board as it was;
Dennis remained as acting secretary-treasurer.
Parron left Puerto Rico and returned to the States on November 30, 1961. A few
days later Dennis distributed a leaflet among the members in which he identified
himself as "head organizer" and "trustee." Again there occurred what one of the
witnesses described as a "real uprising" by union members opposed to the idea of
Dennis becoming trustee. In consequence a committee of five members was desig-
nated to travel to Miami and argue the general membership dissatisfaction to
International President Miller.
They met with him on December 8, 1961, and threatened that unless Dennis were
removed the Puerto Rico Local would disaffiliate. Parron never returned to
Puerto Rico but, as a temporary stopgap to satisfy the demands of the Local 610
group, Miller sent Al Gonzalez, the president of the Miami Local of the Inter-
national, to take over the affairs of Local 610. With Gonzalez to Puerto Rico
went Marcel Kenney, first International vice president, to see that matters ran
smoothly. Dennis remained as a dummy.
In the course of the conference at Miami, President Miller found occasion to say
to the employee committee: "Not to attack too much the Teamsters because maybe
they would reach an agreement, in which they would be out of our jurisdiction and
they wouldn't have any relations whatsoever with us."
On January 5, 1962, Miller appointed still another trustee, Joel Frias, who went
to Puerto Rico to take over and relieve Gonzalez. Two months later, on March 9,
1962, Frias told Maldonado, the office manager, that he had been ordered to return
to the States and that Maldonado should "keep in contact with the shop stewards
of Local 610 because they were the ones who could save the Union if something
should happen." The next day, Frias distributed to the employees gathered in the
office copies of a letter from Miller announcing that there would soon be a new
trustee.
The last trustee, Leopoldo Ramos Ducos, called Ramos, arrived on March 13
in the circumstances described below. For 3 years he had been a paid organizer for
Teamsters Local 901 in Puerto Rico, under Teamsters International Representative
the employees involved in this proceeding. Because I find that, regardless of whether
the bargaining unit detailed in the complaint is or is not appropriate, it has not been
proved that the Respondent violated Section 3(a) (5) of the Act, I deem it unnecessary to
set out that evidence here or to comment upon it. In any event, such defense raises essen-
tially a question of Board policy and therefore more appropriately should be passed upon
by the Board in the first instance, if it should reach the question. See Walter A Kelley,
139 NLRB 744.
762 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Chavez. It was on this occasion , and as a direct result of his arrival, that the
Independiente came into being.
D. The Miller -Ho/ja pact
By the year 1961 Teamsters Local 901, the only Teamsters Local on the Island
of Puerto Rico, was carrying on an intensive organizational campaign among hotel
and restaurant workers in direct competition with Local 610. Its activities spread
throughout the industry ; indeed, the petition in this very proceeding ( Case No.
24-RC-1726 ) was filed by Teamsters Local 901 in an effort to replace Local 610 as
majority representative at the Dorado Hotel. On about March 1 , 1962 ( the precise
date is neither clear on the record nor of any material importance ), an agreement
was made between the respective presidents of the two International Unions. It
came to be called the "pact ," or the "Miller -Hoffa agreement ." The various wit-
nesses who had occasion to refer to it at the hearing agreed that the pact was made
and that it was a document of a few pages . Understandably the original-the physi-
cal document bearing the handwritten signatures of the two presidents-was not and
could not be made available for receipt into evidence in this proceeding.
The terms of that agreement have a direct bearing upon the merits of a number
of litigated proceedings now pending in the Board 's Regional Office in Puerto Rico.
Counsel for the Independiente served subpenas duces tecum upon Ramos, the new
trustee in charge of Local 610 pursuant to the very agreement , and upon Frank
Chavez, the Teamsters International representative in Puerto Rico and the highest
officer of that union on the island, in an effort to compel them to produce at least
a reliable copy of the Miller-Hoffa pact . Each of these men professed inability to do
so. Counselor Torres appeared at the hearing as attorney for both Local 610 and
the Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO.
As Trial Examiner, I asked him several times to make an effort to communicate
directly with his client , Mr. Miller , the president of the AFL-CIO International,
and to request a copy of the pact Miller had signed . He repeatedly evaded any direct
reply. And Marcel Kenney , the International vice president of the AFL -CIO, who
appeared as a witness , and who was sent to Puerto Rico at the time of the events
ostensibly to look after implementation of the agreement , blandly said he had never
seen the original and had read "only a part" of a copy of the document.
Two purported copies of the pact were received in evidence , Exhibit No. 22 of
the Independiente , and Exhibit No. 4 of the Trial Examiner ; they are identical.
Ramos testified that a few months before the hearing he had delivered to an investi-
gating committee of the Puerto Rican Senate a copy of the agreement , one which
he had received from International Representative Chavez. All the parties stipulated
that Trial Examiner 's Exhibit No . 4 is an authentic copy of the copy [sic] of the
agreement which Ramos placed in the hands of the Puerto Rico Senate Committee.
As to Exhibit No. 22 of the Independiente , Ramos started by agreeing that it is
"an absolutely correct copy of the pact that was made between the two International
Unions." He said he knew this to be true because he had read the document that
had been in his hand As his testimony continued he began to say he was not sure
about the copy; he then added that "in substance" the copy received in evidence did
represent the pact as he recalled it.
I am of the opinion that, considering the record as a whole , the copies of the pact
received in evidence may be taken as precisely reflecting the original agreement.
There can be no question but that those persons in the hearing room who could most
reasonably be expected to be familiar with the terms of the agreement and whose
respective positions made them especially chargeable with knowledge of its contents,
were carrying out a concerted and deliberate strategy to keep the terms of the
agreement from seeing the light of day, to confuse this Board on what is perhaps
the most critical element of this entire case , and to mislead both their opponents and
the entire group of employees involved. Ramos was made autocratic boss of Local
610, received a copy of the pact from his superior, Chavez , and yet professed in-
ability to remember its terms . Chavez started his testimony by saying , "I forgot
what is in the agreement " He is the very official of the Teamsters International
charged with carrying out the arrangement . He even testified - "We are complying
very simply with the pact that was signed by presidents of two international unions."
Yet he continued to feign ignorance of its terms
International Vice President Kenney had been in Puerto Rico a number of times
on the problem of Local 610; he was said to have cooperated with Ramos in the
trustee arrangement pursuant to the agreement . Yet he said under oath - "I have
never seen a signed copy of the agreement in any form . . . I've seen a part of a
copy of the agreement ." He made no effort to explain how a two-page document
could possibly come to be cut into segments for distribution and how he could look
HOTEL LA CONCHA 763
at the whole and see only part. And finally, Torres, the trustee's lawyer, asked by
the Trial Examiner to help obtain evidence of the contents of the agreement, answered
on the record:
Mr. TORRES: I do know that there was one copy in Puerto Rico of that docu-
ment, I saw the document, I didn't read it all. I didn't want to read it.
TRIAL EXAMINER: Why?
Mr. TORRES: Because when you don't read something, you are not involved
in it-I cannot testify to its contents and so forth.
In his own words Attorney Torres represents the Teamsters in all kinds of litiga-
tion, including Labor Board matters. Chavez, who as head man of the Teamsters
in Puerto Rico is therefore necessarily Torres' client, testified 2 days after his lawyer
announced he does not read important documents that come into his hands. As
Chavez was being pressed by counsel for the Independiente for details of the pact,
Torres urged a continuing series of objections on the grounds that the best evidence
would be a copy of the pact!
In view of what I deem a deliberate refusal by all those persons having knowledge
of the pact and whose interest could be hurt or helped by producing either the
original agreement or an openly admitted true copy of it, the secondary character
of the exhibits received in evidence does not make them any the less proof of the
contents of the agreement. In any event, there are admissions by Ramos and Chavez
from the witness stand, partial but nevertheless revealing, as to the substantive
terms of the agreement, which I believe in the total picture of the record suffice
in themselves to establish the agreement, or, in the very least, to furnish adequate
corroborating proof of the reliability of the copy received as an exhibit.
After considerable evasion and with marked reluctance Ramos finally came forth
with the following phrases as to the contents of the agreement: "About that the
Teamsters people will withdraw their interest in the hotel industry . the other
thing is that I was named trustee . for the Local 610 . . and the agreement
is it would be in effect for 5 years, and the same would be declared void if I resigned.
That's all I can remember." In like fashion Chavez, from the witness stand, evaded
all questions as to his knowledge of the terms of the agreement, but finally came
forth with the following: "I remember that we were not supposed to raid Local 610's
jurisdiction . . . we will strictly abide in our jurisdiction with relation to Local
610, we will turn over to Local 610, with the approval of the membership, whatever
we have organized now in their jurisdiction. Local 610 further agrees that they
never interfered in our jurisdiction." Chavez also conceded that the pact provided
that in the event Ramos ceased being trustee for Local 610, the Teamsters Inter-
national could unilaterally revoke the agreement.
On the basis of the entire record as made I find that the copy received in evidence,
set out in full immediately following this section of this report, is the Miller-Hoffa
pact. The more significant provisions are as follows:
Teamsters Organizer Ramos to be appointed as trustee over Local 610.
Teamsters International to withdraw all representation petitions pending
before the National Labor Relations Board in the hotel and restaurant industry
in Puerto Rico
Teamsters International to transfer to Local 610 all of those of its members
in the hotel and restaurant industry.
"It is further agreed and understood that there shall be no press releases
of any kind concerning this agreement." 3
The agreement to remain in force for 5 years but the Teamsters could
unilaterally terminate it if Ramos ceased to be the principal officer of Local 610.
Ramos to have full charge of the staff as well as the right of hiring and dis-
charging employees of Local 610
"It is further agreed that his IRamos'l successor dtirinr the life of this
agreement shall be subject to the approval of the Teamsters Union."
COPY OF AGREEMENT IN EVIDENCE
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs . Warehousemen and
Helpers of America , hereinafter referred to as the Teamsters International, and
R In my judgment the patently incredible testimony of the witnesses Ramos, Chavez and
Kennev concerning their purported Inability to recall the terms of the agreement, and the
revealing statement by Attorney Torres concerning this asserted ignorance of the pact,
snnport the finding that this provision, appearing in the exhibit copy, was part of the
original signed document.
764 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, here-
inafter referred to as the Hotel Employees International, in exchange for the
mutual promises and other consideration set forth herein, do hereby agree
and covenant as follows:
1. The Hotel Employees International shall appoint as trustee of Hotel Em-
ployees Local Union 610, Brother Lepoldo D. Ramos, at present a member and
organizer of Teamsters Local Union 901. The Hotel Employees International
shall also appoint Brother Ramos as a Hotel Employees International Organizer,
with the understanding that Brother Ramos will be on the payroll of the Hotel
Employees International and will conduct his activities in accordance with the
rules and procedures of the Hotel Employees International under the direction
of (General President Edward S. Miller, or his successor.
2. The Teamsters International shall withdraw all representation petitions
now pending before the National Labor Relations Board, with the exception
of the La Concha petition, and for the life of this agreement shall not file any
further petitions with the National Labor Relations Board with respect to em-
ployees in Puerto Rico falling within the jurisdiction of the Hotel Employees
International. The Teamsters International shall also transfer to Hotel Em-
ployees Local Union No. 610 all its members in Puerto Rico who now fall
within the jurisdiction of the Hotel Employees International.
3. The Hotel Employees International agrees that negotiations for collective
bargaining agreements to cover the members of Hotel Employees Local Union
610 shall be conducted on a local union level and shall be subject to the ap-
proval of the members involved.
4. It is further mutually agreed that a Teamster-Hotel Employees Joint Or-
ganizing Committee shall be established by the Teamsters International and the
Hotel Employees International, with the express understanding, however, that
the Hotel Employees International will not be requested to become, and will
not become, a part of any effort to organize any workers who do not fall within
its established jurisdiction. Joint Organizing drives shall be financed in the
manner mutually agreed upon by the Teamsters International and the Hotel
Employees International. It is further agreed and understood that if the Joint
Organizing Committee should decide to organize employees beyond the geo-
graphic territory of Puerto Rico, specifically in the Caribbean Island area, the
Hotel Employees International shall agree in advance either to participate in
the particular organizing drive or, in the event the Hotel Employees Interna-
tional should determine that it does not wish to participate in the particular
drive, the Hotel Employees Union shall agree in advance that if the Teamsters
International shall organize the employees involved, the employees will remain
members of the Teamsters International and will not be transferred to the Hotel
Employees International.
5. It is further agreed and understood that there shall be no press releases
of any kind concerning this agreement. At a meeting of the members of
Hotel Employees Local Union 610, International Organizer Ramos will be in-
troduced to the members as the International Trustee of the Local, and Inter-
national Organizer Ramos will announce to the membership of the Local the
establishment of the Joint Organizing Committee
This agreement shall remain in full force and effect for five years after the
date of its execution unless it is modified by mutual consent of the parties, or
unless its implementation becomes impossible by operation of law. However,
it is expressly understood that the Teamsters International may unilaterally
terminate this aereement if Brother Ramos ceases to be the principal executive
officer of Hotel Employees Local Union 610.
For the INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS. CHAUFFEURS. WAREHOUSE-
MEN, AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
(S) James R. Hoffa,
JAMES R. HOFFA,
General President.
For the HOTEL AND RESTAURANT EM-
PLOYEES AND BARTENDERS INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION,
(S) Ed S. Miller.
EDWARD S. MILLER,
General President.
HOTEL LA CONCHA 765
(Handwritten)
Leopoldo D. Ramos shall be the principal officer of the Local 610 and as such
have full charge of the staff and as such shall have the right of hiring and
firing staff.
It is further agreed that his successor during the life of this agreement shall
be subject to the approval of the teamsters union.
E. Evolution of the Independiente from Local 610
When Miller, of the Hotel and Restaurant Workers International. agreed with
Hoffa, of the Teamsters International, to deliver complete control over the Puerto
Rico Local to a Teamsters organizer, the local union was in the hands of Trustee
Frias, the last of a long line of such trustees who had been sent from the States
over several years. The last meeting of employees or of members in Local 610
had taken place in February of the year before, when the last election of officers
was also held. A later trustee, Parron, removed all of the elected representatives.
In consequence, at the beginning of March 1962 there were no regularly elected
union officers. There was, however, a still-functioning executive board: this, accord-
ing to the uncontradicted evidence, by gracious sufferance of Trustee Parron in June
of 1961. In addition, there were a number of organizers employed by Local 610, a
number of stewards who functioned at the different hotels and restaurants where union
members worked, and an office staff consisting, so far as the record shows, of an office
manager and a janitor. It also appears that one Rosario served as treasurer of the
executive board, and one Boucher as vice president of the board. If it can be said
that there were any "officers" or leaders among the union members in the Puerto
Rico Local at that time there were the only such persons. In addition there was
Frias, the trustee, and Dennis, the would-be trustee, who still functioned under Frias
as secretary-treasurer. These last two, of course, were simply representatives of
International President Miller from Cincinnati, and not leaders of the Union in the
sense that officers are the selectees of its members.
Word of the pact and of the imminent designation of a teamsters organizer to
take over Local 610 reached Puerto Rico on about March 9 or 10 There was an
immediate protest reaction by a large number of union members, including partic-
ularly members of the executive board and the longtime Local 610 organizers. A
spontaneous move to prevent a Teamsters takeover was born. Stewards, organizers,
and members of the executive board constituted themselves into a steering com-
mittee. This group remained somewhat amorphous for a few days until by the 13th
or the 14th it jelled into a solid group of between 10 and 20 persons. Its first action
was to send a telegram to Miller in Cincinnati telling him that the agreement had
"aroused general indignation of our membership" and demanding "immediate au-
tonomy." A copy of this telegram was simultaneously sent to Mr. Meany, president
of the AFL-CIO 4 By return telegram Miller swept aside the employees' protest
and said that Ramos had been hired "because of his experience in the hotel and
restaurant field." The steering committee repeated its protest to Miller by telegram
once again on March 13, saying they "reject" the appointment of a Teamsters or-
ganizer over Local 610 No further response was ever received by this group from
Miller.
At 2.30 in the morning of March 13, Ramos, accompanied by five regular
Teamsters Local 901 organizers (Gotay, Gonzalez, Mercadero, Henry Lugo, and
Angel Ortiz) appeared at the office of Local 610 and attempted to gain possession
of the premises, the records, and all other property belonging to the Union They
were confronted by certain union members who had anticipated this move and
who called the local police authorities in advance. There resulted a period of extreme
confusion from that early hour until perhaps noon of the same day As word
spread throughout the hotels, union members, stewards, and members of the execu-
tive board kept comine to the office and forming a mass obstruction to the entry
of Ramos At one time there were as many as 80 persons crowding the office
rooms, mostly Local 610 members, but including also perhaps 15 members of
4 The Miller-Hoffa pact appears to be a clear violation of the policy statement of the
AFL-CIO executive council issued August 18, 1958, which reads, in pertinent part-
Therefore, this Executive Council declares it to be the policy of the AFL-CTO that
any alliance or agreement, formal or informal , between an affiliate of the AFL-CIO
and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters be cancelled Further , that this
above -stated principle applies to any proposals for new alliances or agreements between
the corrupt leadership of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and any AFL-
CIO affiliate [See 42 LRRM 58 1
766 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Teamsters Local 901. The police sided with the Local 610 people and kept the
Ramos group out. At one point Ramos was permitted to go to the second floor
office, but he never succeeded in gaining physical possession of any records or other
property of Local 610. The steering committee was in virtually constant session,
with members coming and going. There were lawyers in profusion: Delgado, long-
time Local 610 attorney; Tones, Teamsters lawyer generally and up to that moment
attorney of record for Teamsters Local 901 in the Dorado Hotel representation pro-
ceeding; Andreu Ribas, Chavez' legal representative and also a Teamsters lawyer;
and Hipolito Marcano, Puerto Rican senator and president of the Puerto Rico Fed-
eration of Labor, who encouraged the local union in its struggle for independence from
either of the International unions.
Eventually, Ramos and the Teamsters organizers left the area; Ramos has never
succeeded in gaining possession of any of the records or documents of the old Local
610. Later in the day he visited the two local banks where the union funds were
on deposit, claimed the right to make withdrawals, and succeeded in having the
funds frozen. With the conflicting claim advanced by the steering committee on
behalf of the Independiente these funds in the hands of the banks remained for
disposition by court litigation.
All those persons who could in any way be said to be officers or agents of Local
610 as it was constituted before these events, apart from Trustee Frias and former
Trustee Dennis, became part of the steering committee. This included all members
of the executive board, Rosario and Boucher, treasurer and vice president respec-
tively of that board, the office staff, and a considerable number of stewards and
organizers. It does not appear that a single person who could be said to have held
any kind of elected or appointed office in the Union joined forces with Ramos in
any way.
Members of the steering committee spent the major portion of the afternoon of
March 13 duplicating from 5,000 to 6,000 copies of a notice calling a general mass
meeting of union members for the next day. The announced purpose of the meet-
ing, as stated in the notice, was to protest the appointment of a Teamsters organizer
as trustee and to consider disaffiliation from the AFL-CIO. That notice was widely
distributed throughout the Island to employees and to various hotels and restaurants.
On March 14, there took place a mass meeting of members of the Union. The
steering committee, assisted by Attorney Delgado, was in charge. Maldonado, a
longtime organizer of Local 610 and for some time the office manager, testified
that there were present for the meeting between 400 and 600 members. Bias
Panzardi, an old organizer from Local 610 who defected to Ramos 3 months after
the March events, testified that in his opinion there were "around 150, more or less "
Rivera, who acted as secretary to take minutes of the meeting, set the number at
about 300 It is clear that the gathering overflowed the meeting hall and offices
occupied by the Union. The men stood about on the streets and the sidewalks;
loudspeakers were set up so that persons outside the building could hear what went
on in the crowded rooms upstairs. This was clearly the largest turnout of any
membership meeting the witnesses could recall. The last meeting of employees that
ever took place in this Union, back in February of 1961, was attended by about
200 persons. In the interval, of course, the affairs of the Union were conducted
by successive trustees who were not obligated to, and do not appear to have con-
sulted the desires of the membership.
The meeting proceeded for its announced purpose and a motion to disaffiliate
from the AFL-CIO and to go independent was made; it was seconded a number of
times. There ensued a general shout of approval. A call was made for "no"
votes and none was heard. There was also a motion to reject the appointment "of
any Teamster as trustee of our union." In like fashion, no negative votes being
voiced, the motion was unanimously deemed carried. The individual membership
of the newly formed steering committee was announced, 20 names were read off
as constituting the control committee, and the matter stood at that point. The
evidence as a whole shows clearly that when expressions of opinion were voiced by
individual members they were in the form of general cheering in the building and
outside to show a universal approval and enthusiasm for what was going on in the
meeting room itself.
Sometime in April a revised constitution was prepared and adopted It followed
substantially the terms of the old Local 610 AFL-CIO constitution, differing
primarily by deletion of all references to the International Union and to those
matters that are pertinent to an affiliated local. The name of the organization
was changed only by dropping the AFL-CIO Local designation.
As an independent union this group then proceeded to campaign for membership.
to participate in election proceedings, and generally to carry on in an attempt to
HOTEL LA CONCHA 767
represent employees in the hotel and restaurant industry throughout Puerto Rico.
What funds were on deposit in the name of the old Local 610 in the banks remained
frozen; all the properties of the old union, including the physical offices and books
and records, have at all times remained in the control of the steering committee.
F. The activities of Leopoldo Ramos Ducos as trustee
The appointment of Ramos as trustee of Local 610 was effective March 12, 1962.
He testified that after failing to obtain possession of the Union's records he did
nothing for about 1 month. He rented an office in the beginning of April, paying
the first rent on April 16. About the same day he hired four persons to work for
him as organizers: Angel Ortiz, Henry Lugo (these two had accompanied him dur-
ing the night of March 12 and 13 to seize the records), Angel Ramon, and Victor
Martinez. All four of these had been regular Teamsters Local 901 organizers in
the hotel and restaurant industry prior to that day. Sometime in June he added to
his staff two other former Teamsters organizers, Victor Ortiz Jusino and Adolfo
Urdo. By the time of the hearing in October, two other organizers were working
for him-Miguel Cruz and Blas Panzardi-each of whom defected from the Inde-
pendiente to go to work for Ramos.
Operating out of his office and with these organizers to assist him, Ramos proceeded
to draft and have printed a large number of campaign leaflets which the organizers
distributed at the various hotels and restaurants, calling upon workmen to join or to
vote in favor of Local 610, AFL-CIO. Ramos went on to testify that he never
held any meeting of employees or of union members until the month of September.
Sometime in April he prepared a form demand letter which he distributed to
those hotel and restaurant employers whom he believed to have unexpired contracts
with Local 610; he called upon them to recognize him as the authorized representa-
tive of the contracting union and to pay over to him dues checkoffs and other wel-
fare benefits called for in the agreements. He said he asked International Vice
President Kenney for copies of contracts in effect but that Kenney never sent them
to him. Ramos also testified that none of these employers recognized him as the
spokesman for the bargaining agent; that none forwarded any money to him; that
some withheld action because of the conflicting claim received from the Inde-
pendiente; and that others placed the dues checkoff payments in the hands of the
local courts pending final litigation.
G. Evidence indicating that after March 13, 1962, Local 610, AFL-CIO, ivas
an activity of Teamsters Local 901 in disguise
1. The Miller-Hoffa pact, upon which the Ramos designation as trustee rested,
contains several provisions which show convincingly that Ramos was not selected
for this post because of any personal qualifications, but only because of his status
as a Teamsters organizer. One clause provides that the "deal" would be off if
Ramos were removed. Another specifies that any successor trustee must also be
acceptable to the Teamsters International. It follows from these agreements that
what Miller intended to concede, and what Hoffa was exacting by the placement of
Ramos in complete charge of the Local, was not merely the use of an experienced
organizer or union leader, but instead the permanent entrenchment of a Teamsters
representative in unfettered control of Local 610.
2. The pact also provides that there should be established a joint organizing
committee of the Teamsters International and the Hotel and Restaurant Workers
International. Chavez, the Teamsters International Representative in Puerto Rico,
admitted candidly no such cooperative step was ever taken.
3. Chavez was as much a participant in the effort to take over the offices and the
records of Local 610 as was Ramos himself. Together they discussed the pact
with Myra Wolfgang, an AFL-CIO International vice president, at a hotel a day
or two before the events of March 13. Late in the evening of March 12, Maldonado,
a spokesman for the temporary steering committee, met Chavez at the hotel and
told him of the telegram which had been sent to Miller in Cincinnati, giving the
latter a 48-hour ultimatum to cancel the designation of the new trustee. According
to Maldonado, Ramos was also present and Chavez said to him that he should go
to the office but wait 24 hours. Chavez recalled having told Ramos that night
"he should go in the morning, early, go in the office . . . because if not the politicians
might try to stop him." Ramos testified that he sat on a sofa 6 feet away from the
other two while they talked but did not hear what they said. I discredit his denial.
When Ramos attempted to take over the Local 610 office at 2:30 the next morning,
and continued his efforts throughout the day, Chavez was there to assist him. At
precisely what time Chavez arrived is not clear on the record but I think it unimpor-
768 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tant to decide exactly at what moment he came. According to him he arrived at
about 10 o'clock; he had simply heard there were "a lot of policemen there" and
"I wanted to see what it was all about, that's all." Perez, another witness and one
of a group guarding the office during the night, put Chavez together with Ramos
at the very hour when the Teamsters group arrived at 2:30 a.m. Ramos, who gave
a more detailed story of the events, stated unequivocally that after having trouble
with the old group which prevented his entry, he personally went to the home of
Chavez at 6 a.m. to pick him up. He continued to say that he and Chavez then
together went to the hotel to confer with Myra Wolfgang at about 6:30 a.m.; and
that together they returned to the office where by that time there were perhaps 80
persons milling about the place. Regardless of the hour when Chavez may have
arrived, there is no question but that he was there early in the morning, that he
went there for the purpose of assisting the takeover, and that he, like Ramos, was
in the company of the several regular Teamsters organizers.
With time the police permitted Ramos to ascend to the second floor office, but he
had no success in gaining control or possession of anything. He walked out to
the balcony facing the street and called down to Chavez, who was on the sidewalk.
According to Ramos he told Chavez, "There is a jam in here-they refuse to give
me the records, to hand me the records," and Chavez answered for him "to stay
there until something happened, because I [Ramos] was to call Attorney Ribas and
try to fix the problem." Chavez quoted Ramos as asking him "What am I sup-
posed to do?" and then added that "maybe" he told Ramos he (Chavez) would
call his own lawyer. On Chavez' admission Andreu Ribas is his lawyer, and a
"Teamsters lawyer." I do not know who called Ribas, for Ramos and Chavez
each testified it was he who telephoned the lawyer. Ribas did arrive, and shortly
thereafter, as attorney of record for Ramos, filed an injunction proceeding in the
Federal District Court against the old members of Local 610. I think on this record,
and particularly in view of the demeanor of Ramos and Chavez on the witness stand,
a more reliable version of the instructions Chavez called up to Ramos on the
balcony, and the version which I credit, is that given by witness Santiago: "You
don't give up a inch no matter what it takes. They have to go and we are taking
over."
4. Mr. Torres, the attorney who represented Ramos' Local 610 at the 2-week
hearing in this stage of the proceeding, stated on the record that he represents the
Teamsters "in certain cases, criminal cases, civil cases, and some hearings before
this Board etc and so forth " He is also the attorney who, on behalf of Teamsters
Local 901, filed the petition initially in this case back in 1961 and represented
Teamsters Local 901 throughout the proceeding until the question of these objec-
tions arose.
5. Virtually all the assistants Ramos used in his campaign among the hotel and
restaurant employees, including the group at the Dorado Hotel, were Teamsters
organizers who went to work directly for him. Chavez testified it was he who
recommended the hiring of all six of the Teamsters who constituted Ramos' entire
payroll by June of 1962. A particularly revealing example of the influence Chavez
exercised over the activities of Ramos appears in the testimony of the trustee himself
at one point: "It was a Saturday-I was at Dorado Hotel making my campaign.
He [Chavez] showed up in my office and named two organizers to be switched from
Teamsters to Local 610. That's what I declared at the Puerto Rico Senate . . . he
appointed two organizers to Local 610."
6. In his activities after having hired the Teamsters organizers, Ramos prepared
and distributed a large number of leaflets in the name of Local 610, AFL-CIO. He
testified quite candidly that most of these leaflets were made at the printshop owned
and operated by the Teamsters Union. He said he paid for the printing jobs. It
also appeared that three of the many Local 610 leaflets identified and received into
evidence were printed at a private shop unconnected with Teamsters Union.
As to some of the Local 610 leaflets Ramos disclaimed any responsibility, either
for their preparation or distribution. He was flatly contradicted by Chavez. Chavez
spoke of having himself "dreamed up" the language of some of these, of their
distribution by Teamsters organizers not in Ramos' employ, and of general campaign
activity among hotel and restaurant workers conducted by Chavez himself. He also
said that Ramos ordered these leaflets, and paid for them directly after their print-
ing at the Teamsters printshop.
In fact, Chavez made no mystery of his participation in the campaign carried on
in the name of Local 610, AFL-CIO. He insisted that Ramos always paid for
leaflets printed in the Teamsters printshop, but he candidly conceded many of them
were written by himself or his personal assistants , and were distributed by both those
former Teamsters organizers who had gone to work for Ramos, and others who
HOTEL LA CONCHA 769
had at all times remained on the payroll of Teamsters Local 901. He said he fur-
nished the services of his own people "gratis." Indeed, from the totality of his testi-
mony it appears quite clear that he virtually did not distinguish between the Teamsters
campaign among these employees before the Miller-Hoffa pact and its continuance
thereafter.
Q. Did you used to help Local 610 with your organizers at the campaigns
at the Dorado Beach Hotel?
A. Yes, oh, sure.
Q. During the election, May 4th and June 1st elections?
A. All the way through from the beginning.
He admitted quite as candidly that his organizers also campaigned during this very
period by visiting the homes of hotel and restaurant employees to solicit Local 610
adherence.
There is direct (his own testimony) evidence that even Ramos continued to think
of himself as a Teamsters representative and not as an AFL-CIO official at all. As
late as September he wrote and had this organizers distribute a leaflet attacking the
Independiente and the SIU; the pamphlet was distributed at several large hotels
whose employees were involved in another active representation proceeding before
the Board. Ramos signed this leaflet "Teamsters Local Union 901," and its closing
statement, in very large black letters, is "The Teamster always conquers."
7. Chavez completed his testimony on October 3, 1962. His last statement as a
witness was that while the pact had been in effect up to that very day, as of "now"
it was "off." Five days later, on October 8, as Ramos was concluding his testimony
in the case, he said that some of his organizers (former Teamsters) "are thinking of
going to Local 901 Teamsters . they have told me that they are thinking of
some conversation they had with Mr. Chavez, to go to work for Teamsters Local
901." With this, the cycle of fraud and trickery upon the employees, agreed upon
in the Miller-Hoffa pact but kept hidden by its very terms, would seem to have
come full circle. When Chavez calls the tune of agreement, the Teamsters or-
ganizers move over to Ramos' payroll and distribute Local 610, AFL-CIO, leaflets
approved and drafted by Chavez. As soon as Chavez has a change of heart, they
think of shedding the AFL-CIO cloak and once again emerging in their true colors
as the Teamsters Union.
H. Concluding findings as to the nature and character of Local 610, AFL-CIO,
under the trusteeship of Ramos
About March 5, 1962, the president of the Hotel and Restaurant Employees and
Bartenders International Union signed a document officially designating a new trustee
over its Local 610, with both the name of the new designee and the effective date of
the appointment left blank. On the 12th the name of Ramos was inserted on the
document and his tenure started. Whatever may have been the legal effect, in a
very technical sense, of this action by Miller, from that moment on Local 610,
AFL-CIO, in Puerto Rico in fact ceased to exist as a labor organization within the
meaning of that term as defined in the Act.5 The only action taken by any employees
or members of the labor organization was to reject Ramos as trustee, to disaffiliate
from the International AFL-CIO, and to create a labor organization called the
Independiente. The mass meeting of March 14 was attended by a larger group of
union members than, it appears, had ever assembled at an employee or membership
meeting before. If the percentage participation at the meeting by 400 to 500 of
the total paper membership of 4,000 seems small, it must be remembered that for
several years the summary treatment of this local at the hands of the International
had precluded any meeting at all; the members were no longer accustomed to being
accorded voting rights. The motions to end any relationship with the International,
to change the Union's name, and to continue its real existence, were carried by
universal cheers and acclamation. The leaders of the employee members may not
have been duly elected officers in the formal, traditional sense, but this was only
because for several years the action of the International president had shut off any
Section 2(5) of the Act reads as follows:
The term "labor organization" means any organization of any kind, or any agency
or employee representation committee or plan, tin which employees participate and
which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers con-
cerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or con-
ditions of work. [Emphasis supplied ]
770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employee expression of choice in the matter. If any persons could be viewed, in
retrospect, as then holding positions of leadership or "officership" among the em-
ployees, it was the members of the executive board, the officers of that board, the
stewards at the various hotels and restaurants, and the paid organizers. To a man
they moved with the disaffiliation and took respective positions continuing in the
newly formed labor organization. There is no indication at all that a single member
at that time chose to join forces with the new trustee and bring into being any other
and separate labor organization.
In contrast, the record shows clearly that for a period of a full month, from
March 12 to about April 9, Local 610, AFL-CIO, consisted of nothing more than the
document designating Ramos as trustee, and Ramos himself. In the trustee's own
words, he had "no organization." If there was a Local 610 organization at that
time, it was no more than a paper local.
When ,Ramos did begin to take action in April, nominally as an official of Local
610, AFL-CIO, it was only as a tool of the Teamsters Union and its International
Representative Chavez. To assist him in his attempt to persuade hotel and restaurant
workers to join forces with him, Ramos hired Teamsters organizers, the very persons
who, before the new trusteeship, had been campaigning for Teamsters Local 901.
Chavez recommended the selection of the Teamsters organizers, Chavez "switched"
organizers from the Teamsters payroll to that of Ramos. At Ramos' request, Chavez
and his personal crew in the Teamsters printshop drafted what appeared to be
Local 610 leaflets, printed them, and distributed them. It would appear that
Teamsters organizers still on the Teamsters payroll were as active in distributing
Local 610 leaflets, as were the former Teamsters organizers being paid by Ramos.
One of the first inducements the new Ramos-Local 610 offered hotel and restaurant
employees was "medicines completely free of charge" at the Santa Rita Drug Store
Chavez admitted the Santa Rita Drug Store is owned and operated by Teamsters
Local 901, and added he "thought" it has been used to dispense free medicines to
hotel employees He said that since May 1, 1962 the Teamsters has also owned a
dispensary at the Blanco Drug Store, and here also he "thought" Dorado Beach
Hotel employees had been given free medical assistance
Thus, the intended scheme revealed by the Miller-Hoffa pact was in fact carried
out, but in form only. The meatless shell of what used to house an energetic and
determined group of workmen did become a legal structure controlled directly,
as well as behind the scenes, by the Teamsters Union. It did not, however, grow
into the substance of a labor organization. There is no evidence that the Ramos-
Local 610 ever had any members or represented any employees. Among other
things, the pact provided that the Teamsters "shall also transfer to Hotel Em-
ployees' Local Union No. 610 all its members in Puerto Rico who now fall within
the jurisdiction of the Hotel Employees International." I do not know whether
Chavez physically delivered to Ramos the membership or authorization cards of
any employees at all. Nor need I comment at this late date in the administration of
this statute upon the legal effect of any such agreement or transfer of employees
by union leaders from one union to another. It is clear, however, that between
March 12 and sometime in September no union employee meeting of any kind was
held by Ramos for his Local 610. None of the employers who previously had
contracts with Local 610 recognized him as a bargaining agent None of them
accorded him the contractual benefits flowing from the existing agreements cover-
ing employees in the hotel and restaurant industry. He never came into possession
of any of the assets, or records, of the true labor organization to which the em-
ployees chose to adhere. In sum, whatever existence Local 610, AFL-CIO, had
in Puerto Rico centered in Ramos and in Ramos alone Local 610 was but a
fiction, or, at best, a legal technicality created by the stroke of the pen when Miller
named a trustee. There was no more a Local 610 affiliated labor organization
than there would be had the International issued a charter to a designated local,
with no further action taken upon it by anyone.
The situation here is not analogous to those in which the Board has had occasion
to speak of "schism" within a labor organization. There did not emerge two unions
where first there was one. Within the intendment of the statute as a whole a labor
organization is distinguished above all by the participation in its activities by "em-
ployees." In this instance, so far as appears, all the employees continued their
separate organizational life exactly as they had before, with the exception that they
severed their organization from the AFL-CIO; their union otherwise remained the
same There was no dissident or minority group which chose to remain with an
older leadership, or with an identifiable group which drew aside.6 I think the
9 Cf Hebron Brick Company, 135 NLRB 245.
HOTEL LA CONCHA 771
record as a whole warrants the conclusion that the same labor organization which
was born in 1928, and which affiliated in 1957 with the AFL-CIO, continued its
individual and distinctive existence from March 13 on under the name of the
Independiente . If there was any other organization it was the Teamsters Union,
whatever it chose to call itself , or any one of its segments , at that time.
1. Further testimony by Ramos in the Miramar Charterhouse case
Ramos completed his testimony in the Dorado Beach Hotel case on October 8.
He was called again to testify for the General Counsel in the Miramar Charterhouse
case on October 25, as a rebuttal witness, after the respondents in that case had
rested their defense upon the record of the Dorado Beach Hotel case. In this
second appearance, Ramos retracted some of his admissions and changed other
points in his story.
One of Ramos' most revealing acts, as late as September, showing that he was
even then acting as a Teamsters organizer and not as an AFL-CIO agent, was
his preparation and broad distribution among hotel employees of a leaflet in the
name of "Teamsters Local 901" and emphatically proclaiming "The Teamster
Always Conquers." Two weeks after unequivocally admitting-several times-
that he had personally written the leaflet and ordered its distribution, he said he
had nothing to do with it, either in the preparation or distribution.
In his earlier testimony Ramos also clearly said that in response to his April 23
form letter calling upon hotels and restaurants to send contract dues checkoffs to
him personally, no employer did so. In his second appearance he changed this
and testified that three employers-Atlantic Beach Hotel (7 employees), Night
and Day Nightclub (20 employees), and El Nilo Restaurant (20 employees)-did
forward contract dues to him "immediately after I claimed it by the letter ... the
beginning of April . . He added that a fourth company, Zipperles Restaurant,
recognized him as bargaining agent and dealt with him beginning sometime in June.
Ramos impressed me as an unreliable witness when he testified at the first hear-
ing; the fact that he completely reversed important details of his testimony later
does not make him more credible in my judgment. Chavez, the Teamsters Inter-
national representative, corroborated Ramos' first story about the "Teamster Local
901" leaflets, saying that Ramos had ordered them to be printed at the Teamsters
printshop. Asked if he had made any attempt to disabuse the hotel employees of
the impression, necessarily arising from the critical leaflet, that it was the Teamsters
that was competing with the Independiente, Ramos came forth with a series of
evasive answers. In any event, his total demeanor on the witness stand, including
particularly his incredible insistence that he was not familiar with the Miller-Hoffa
pact, makes it impossible for me to accept his belated retraction. I find that he did
write and distribute the leaflet in the name of the Teamsters.
Considering his testimony as a whole, it may also well be that he never received
any dues at all from the companies he listed in his second appearance. Whether or
not any employers extended recognition to him as a trustee during those early days
was an important issue at the Dorado Beach Hotel hearing and the question on that
point was put to him clearly and more than once. He did not equivocate in saying
that none of them had done so. Be that as it may, I do not believe that any
such dues which he may have collected from employers, even assuming it happened
at all, suffice to alter the finding, to which I adhere, that his entire course of conduct
amounted to nothing more than a front for Teamsters Local 901. At best he said
he pocketed dues of about 50 employees out of a total membership of 4,000, a
relatively insignificant matter. More important, however, there is every indication
that the receipt of these dues in no way indicates employee desire to join or pay
dues to the AFL-CIO or to have any regard for Miller's designation of Ramos
as trustee of Local 610.
Ramos said that the El Nilo and Zipperles restaurants were covered by a multi-
employer Local 610 contract including six employers. When, at the expiration of
that agreement, the Independiente filed a Labor Board petition for an election
among the employees of all those companies, Ramos first intervened in the proceed-
ing. and then withdrew his Local 610 from participation in any election But such
action is persuasive indication that when two restaurants forwarded dues to Ramos,
it was not because their employees wished it so, but rather because, unlike other
employers who deposited contract checkoffs in court or held them pending NLRB
resolution of the question, these two were somehow persuaded by Ramos Had it
been the employees who wanted their dues paid to him, he would at least have, or he
should have, attempted to establish his authority to act as their bargaining agent in
7 2 7-0 8 a-6 4-v o 1 14 4-5 0
772 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Board-conducted election. And as to Zipperles' restaurant, Ramos said the
dues were forthcoming only after issuance of an unfair labor practice complaint
by the Labor Board's Regional Director. Zipperles' restaurant settled with the
Government, avoided further prosecution, and paid to Ramos. Dues collection in
these circumstances can hardly be viewed as successful organizational activity by
"Local 610, AFL-CIO." And since the filing of the Independiente petition for an
election, these restaurants have ceased sending anything to Ramos.
I have no reason to believe that the dues forwarded to Ramos by the Atlantic
Beach Hotel for 7 employees, and by the Night and Day Nightclub for 20 others,
any more reflect employee intent to be represented by Ramos than does the action
of El Nilo and Zipperles. Ramos said, for the first time in his later testimony, that
he even discussed two grievances at these restaurants "about 15 days" after opening
his office in April. As in most of his testimony, he was again vague as to details, and,
of course, these facts, too, came as belated changes in testimony by a generally
discredited witness.
Ramos' final assertion was that his Local 610 was even certified by the Board's
Regional Director after an election, as bargaining agent for about 20 employees of
the Under The Trees Restaurant. This one is located under and in the same build-
ing where Ramos opened his office in April. He said this happened in June, but
he never mentioned the fact in his long testimony during the Dorado Beach Hotel
hearing, where he also admitted there never was a member or employee meeting
of his Local 610 before September. The Under The Trees Restaurant certificate
means only that this very small group of employees were persuaded that they were
voting for an AFL-CIO umon when in reality it was Teamsters Local 901 that would
do the bargaining for them. I could hardly conclude otherwise now that all the
facts appearing in the Dorado Beach Hotel record have come to light.
J. Analysis and conclusion
I will recommend dismissal of the entire complaint.
One of the separate exhibits introduced by the Respondent is a detailed factual
statement it submitted directly to the Board in support of the request for reinstate-
ment of the employer's election petition which the Regional Direcor had dismissed.
The statement expressly concedes the facts, now established by the General Counsel,
showing that the Company contended there was a reasonable doubt as to the identity
of the majority representative and insisted the doubt should be resolved by the Board
through its established representation election procedures. The statement also high-
lights some of the salient events, later revealed in comprehensive detail in the Dorado
Beach Hotel record, advanced by the Respondent as the reasonable basis for its
doubt. As the General Counsel has come forth with no evidence in conflict with
these statements, and as the full record now made supports, and even enlarges upon
the assertions there made by the Company, the Respondent argues that the very fact
of the Board's reinstatement of the petition suffices to compel a conclusion that a
question concerning representation existed at the time of the events, that there was
no majoriy representative at that time which the company was under statutory obli-
gation to recognize, and that the Board itself has in fact already so ruled.?
This is a procedural argument; I do not believe that the Board's action in holding
a petition in abeyance pending a full inquiry into the facts, whether by way of
hearing on a petition or evidence on a complaint, can be viewed as prejudgment of
the issues in this case. I think it clear, however, now that the entire picture of the
pertinent facts has been exposed, that the Company's decision to withhold recogni-
tion from both Ramos and the Independiente-and that is all it decided or did-
was neither a refusal to bargain with a true majority representative of its employees
nor illegal aid to a labor organization.
In terms of the realities of industrial relations as envisaged by the statute at a whole,
on March 14, 1962, when, as found above, the Independiente came into existence,
Local 610, AFL-CIO, ceased to be. When Trustee Ramos asked the Respondent
to look upon him as though he were the effective spokesman of the labor organiza-
tion which had signed the January contract, he was not speaking for any of the em-
ployees of the La Concha Casino, he was not authorized by any local labor organiza-
tion, indeed he was not an AFL-CIO representative at all. Whatever slight indication
of independence he may have revealed in October when testifying in the Miramar
Charterhouse case, as of the March through June period during which the Respond-
ent's good faith has been questioned a better description of Trustee Ramos would
be that he was the errand boy of Teamsters International Representative Chavez.
7 Compare Henry Heide, Inc., 107 NLRB 1160
SHEET METAL WORKERS' INT'L ASSN., LOCAL 270 773
The Respondent was not obligated to bargain with him or his nominal union and
therefore any refusal to recognize him could not constitute an unfair labor practice . 8
Except for the Respondent Company, all other parties to this proceeding-the
General Counsel, the Independiente , and "Local 610, AFL-CIO"-are the same as
those involved in the Dorado Beach Hotel and the Miramar Charterhouse cases.
And as the Respondent's counsel , Mr. Wells, stipulated to the records of those cases,
there is no question but that the Respondent is equally well informed about them,
including the Trial Examiner reports which I issued in each of them .9 No purpose
would be served, therefore , by restating the rationale for the inevitable conclusion
compelled by the facts in the two earlier records. As the Respondent Company
was under no statutory obligation to bargain with Ramos and his "Local 610," the
complaint allegation of a violation of Section 8(a)5) of the Act must fail. In
these circumstances , the Respondent 's treatment of the Independiente , at best an
invitation that it get together with Ramos to decide exactly who was to represent
the casino employees , could in no event constitute a violation of Section 8(a) (2).
RECOMMENDATION
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and conclusions, I recommend that the
complaint herein be dismissed in its entirety.
8 Rocky Mountain Phosphates , Inc., 138 NLRB 292.
' See Trial Examiner's report and recommendations on objections to election, issued in
Case No. 24-RC-1726 [144 NLRB 712] on November 27, 1962, and Intermediate Report
and Recommended Order issued in Case No . 24-CA-1606 [144 NLRB 728.1, on Decem-
ber 6, 1962.
Sheet Metal Workers' International Association , Local Union
No. 270 and General Sheet Metal Co. Case No. 16-CB-201.
September 23, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 5, 1963, Trial Examiner William Seagle issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint and recommending that it be dismissed in its entirety, as
set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. Thereafter, the Gen-
eral Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a sup-
porting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In-
termediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
MEMBERS LEEDOM and JENKINS took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Order.
144 NLRB No. 69.