Sea-Land Service, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 20, 1964

146 N.L.R.B. 931 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC., ETC. 931
Sea-Land Service , Inc. and Sea-Land of Puerto Rico , a Division
of Sea-Land Service , Inc. and Insular Labor Organization
(ILO) of Ponce, Independent . Case No. 24-CA-16,33. April 00,
1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 26, 1963, Trial Examiner James F. Foley issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermedi-
ate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent and the Charging Party
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, together with supporting
briefs.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Leedom and Jenkins].
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 briefs, and the entire record
in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and the
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial
Examiner.2
'The Respondent 's request for oral argument is hereby denied as , in our opinion, the
entire record in this case , including the exceptions and briefs , adequately set forth the
issues and positions of the parties.
2 The Recommended Order is hereby amended by substituting for the first paragraph
therein the following paragraph:
Upon the entire record in this case , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders
that Respondent , Sea-Land Service , Inc. and Sea-Land of Puerto Rico, a Division of
Sea-Land Service , Inc., its officers , agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
The notice is hereby amended so that the note will read:
NOTE.-We will notify the above -named employees If presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in
accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and
Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case , Case No. 24-CA-1633, was brought under Section 10(b) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended ( 61 Start. 136, 73 Stat. 519), herein called
the Act, on unfair labor practice charges filed by Insular Labor Organization (ILO)
of Ponce, Independent , against Respondent Sea-Land Service , Inc. and Sea-Land
146 NLRB No. 107.
932 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of Puerto Rico,' a Division of Sea-Land Service, Inc., herein called Sea-Land. The
first charge was filed August 3, an amended charge was filed August 24, and a
second amended charge was filed on October 25, 1962. A complaint was issued
against Respondent on October 31, 1962, alleging that Respondent violated Section
8(a) (1), (2), (3), and (5) of the Act.
Respondent is charged with violating Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) by engaging
in discriminatory conduct affecting adversely the wages and hours of work of
approximately 100 stevedore and related employees at the port of Ponce because they
withdrew from membership in Local 1855, affiliated with District Council of the
Ports of Puerto Rico, International Longshoremen's Association AFL-CIO (herein
called I.L.A. District Council), and International Longshoremen's Association,
AFL-CIO (herein called I.L.A.), and formed a new independent labor organization
which they called Insular Labor Organization (ILO) of Ponce, Independent (herein
called ILO), and by a plurality vote in a Board-conducted election on July 2, 1962,
selected it as their collective-bargaining representative instead of Union de Traba-
jodores de Muelles (Union of Dock Workers), Local 1903, I.L.A. (herein called
UTM Local 1903), I.L.A. District Council, and I.L.A. There is also an allegation
of a refusal to bargain with ILO. Respondent denies these allegations.
Specifically, the conduct Respondent is alleged to have engaged in, and is engag-
ing in, is: (1) Discontinuing on or about July 2, 1962, sending to the port of Ponce
its trailer cargo ships, called C-2's carrying cargo in trailer vans or boxes moved
on land on a trailer chassis pulled by a tractor, which were handled at Ponce by
employee' members of ILO; (2) discontinuing on or about July 5, 1962, the sending
of stevedore gangs consisting of ILO members to San Juan to handle the cargo vans
or boxes of C-2's scheduled to sail to the port of Ponce, but rescheduled to stop
at San Juan; 2 (3) discontinuing on or about the same date the employment of full
gangs of employee members of ILO at its warehouse in Ponce; and (4) from on or
about September 10, 1962, denying its employee members of ILO the work at the port
of Ponce of unloading and loading trailer vans of cargo carried to and from Ponce
in ships called C-4's, which carry a combination of cargo in vans and break-bulk
or conventional cargo, and warehousing work in connection with the trailer van
cargo, and employing members of UTM Local 1903, to do this work by utilizing
Waterman Steamship Corporation of Puerto Rico as the handler of the stevedoring
and related operations. The unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint also
include the allegations: (5) Respondent has unlawfully refused to bargain, by unilat-
erally, and without notice to and negotiation with ILO, the collective-bargaining
representative of its employees, discontinuing the sending of its C-2 ships to Ponce,
the sending of stevedoring gangs of Ponce employees to San Juan to unload or load
Ponce cargo from C-2 ships, denying its ILO member employees the work of un-
loading and loading the trailer van cargo from or on C-4 ships at Ponce, and employ-
ing less than full gangs of its employees in its warehouse at Ponce; and (6) Re-
spondent has refused to reinstate employee members of ILO who engaged in an
unfair labor practice strike on July 30 and 31, 1962, in protest against all of the above-
alleged unfair labor practices, upon their making an unconditional offer to return
to work on August 1, 1962, and has continued to employ replacements in their
jobs.3
A hearing on the complaint and answer was held before Trial Examiner James
F. Foley in San Juan and Ponce, Puerto Rico, on 14 hearing days during the period
from January 17 up to and including February 2, 1963. Respondent, General
Counsel, and Charging Party were represented at the hearing and were afforded an
opportunity to be heard, make oral argument, and file briefs. The parties, by coun-
sel, waived oral argument and filed briefs after the hearing was closed .4
"The Trial Examiner granted General Counsel's motion, joined in by Charging Party,
and not opposed by Respondent, that all reference to Sea-Land of Puerto Rico as a corpora-
tion be stricken from the complaint.
3 Respondent's counsel moved to strike this allegation from the complaint. After con-
sidering argument for and against the motion, it is denied.
i ILO, the Charging Party, charged that the Respondent has made a general refusal to
bargain, in addition to the limited refusal alleged in the complaint. Evidence in regard
to the charge of a general refusal was offered to the record b3 Charging Party and Re
spondent, and indirectly by General Counsel.
4 On February 20, 1963, the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico,
in a preliminary injunction proceeding under Section 10(j) of the Act (Raymond J.
Compton, Reg. Dir. v Sea-Land Service, Inc, 53 LRRM 2016 (D C P.R) ), found reason-
able cause to believe that Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1), (2), (3), and (5) of the
Act, and that injunctive relief should issue The court's order was issued on the same date
SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC., ETC. 933
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION 5
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT SEA-LAND
The Respondent Sea-Land, a Delaware corporation, operates ships that carry
cargo in trailer vans and conventional or break-bulk cargo between ports in the
continental United States, and between ports in the continental United States and
the ports of San Juan and Ponce, Puerto Rico, and from which operations it derives
an annual revenue in excess of $100,000. See Pan Atlantic Steamship Company
(the former name of Sea-Land), 132 NLRB 868, 877, and Sea-Land Service, Inc.,
137 NLRB 546. Sea-Land Service is a division of Respondent Sea-Land, and is an
integrated part of Respondent Sea-Land. Jurisdiction is undisputed.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The ILO is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
It is the Board -certified collective-bargaining representative of Sea-Land's employees
at the port of Ponce, Puerto Rico , doing stevedoring work, and other employees
loading and unloading vessels, including truckdrivers, motor operators , checkers,
gatemen , hatch tenders, mechanics , and mechanic helpers. See Sea-Land Service,
Inc., 137 NLRB 546, footnote 8.
UTM Local 1903, now affiliated with I.L.A., is also a labor organization within
the meaning of the Act. It represents as collective -bargaining representative em-
ployees in Ponce of shipper and shipper agent members of Puerto Rican Steamship
Association . Its status as a labor organization is undisputed.
The I.L.A. District Council , the I .L.A., I.L.A. Local 1575, and UTM Local 1740,
now affiliated with I .L.A., are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act.
The status of each of these organizations as a labor organization is undisputed.
111. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background evidence
McLean Industries is the parent corporation of Sea-Land, Waterman Steamship
Corporation , and Waterman Steamship Corporation of Puerto Rico. Both Waterman
companies are wholly owned by McLean Industries , while Sea-Land is controlled by
it. Waterman Steamship Corporation of Puerto Rico is herein called Waterman.
In 1958, Waterman attempted to institute what is characterized as a mechanized
service. This consisted of loading cargo in trailer vans and then loading the vans on
ships. This is a more efficient method of hauling cargo . The vans can be loaded and
unloaded with fewer personnel and less equipment than conventional cargo, and more
easily placed in the hold and on the deck of the cargo vessels . Their use permits the
more efficient use of cargo space. Waterman 's first ship , the Bienville, was tied up
for 4 weeks in San Puan due to Waterman 's inability to muster a stevedoring crew to
unload it .6 McLean Industries arranged to have Pan -Atlantic Steamship Company,
a company it controlled , handle the operation of the trailer van ships , called C-2's.
Pan-Atlantic Steamship Company, herein called Pan -Atlantic, hired stevedores and
other personnel necessary for loading and unloading who were willing to work in
connection with the loading and unloading of the C-2 trailer van ships at San Juan
and Ponce . In 1958 , the I .L.A., which was then independent , the I .L.A. District
Council , and I .L.A. Locals 1575 ( San Juan ) and 1855 ( Ponce ) were certified as
the collective -bargaining representative for a two-port unit of these Pan-Atlantic
employees . In 1958, Pan-Atlantic recognized and bargained with I .L.A., I.L.A.
District Council , and I .L.A. Local 1575 and 1855 on behalf of these employees.?
5 The official transcript of the hearing Is corrected In the manner set forth in Appendix C
pursuant to stipulation of counsel for General Counsel, Respondent, and Charging Party.
9 Waterman's stevedores were represented by UTM-IBL Locals 1740 (in San Juan) and
1903 (in Ponce). The IBL (International Brotherhood of Longshoremen) was the Inter-
national union that supplanted the I.L A. In the AFL-CIO federation In 1954. The UTM-
IBL council and IBL were the bargaining representative for UTM-IBL locals in Puerto
Rico and their members. They had a collective-bargaining contract with Puerto Rican
Steamship Association. Waterman was a member of the Association.
4 The Board set aside the collective-bargaining contract in 1961 because of the exclusive
hiring hall for these personnel operated in San Juan by IL A Local 1575 and in Ponce by
I L.A. Local 1855. Pan Atlantic was enjoined from recognizing the two I L A. locals,
I.L.A. and I L A. District Council, until these labor organizations demonstrated their "ex-
clusive majority status" by a Board-conducted election Pan Atlantic Steamship Company,
132 NLRB 868. (Although Pan Atlantic became Sea-Land Service, Inc, herein called
Sea-Land, In April 1960, the Board referred to it as Pan Atlantic Steamship Company in
this cited case decided August 10, 1961.)
-934 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The handling of C-2 cargo by Respondent's Ponce and San Juan employees remained
•otherwise uneventful until September 1961.
On or about September 1961, the probationary period for I.L.A.'s return to the
AFL-CIO expired, and it regained its full status as an International union in the
AFL-CIO. The IBL lost its status or at least its effectiveness in Puerto Rico, and
the UTM unions in Puerto Rico affiliated with I.L.A. On September 11, 1961,
I.L.A. sought an agreement with its newly acquired UTM unions in Puerto Rico
and the unions in Puerto Rico which had been affiliated with it during its tenure as
an independent union (1954 to 1959), and while it was on a probationary status as
an AFL-CIO International union (September 1959 to September 1961), by which
,there would be a merger of the I.L.A. locals and the UTM locals at Ponce, Ceiba
and Fajardo, and Mayaguez. The I.L.A. Local 1575 and UTM Local 1740 in
San Juan were to remain separate. The UTM locals and the I.L.A. locals with the
• exception of Ponce Local 1855 signed the agreement. Under the agreement, Local
1855, with approximately 100 members, was to be merged with Ponce UTM Local
1903, with approximately 1,200 members, into a local administered by Pedro
iRosas, the UTM local presidents Ramon Mejias, the president of Local 1855,
was at the merger meeting on September 11, 1961, but took the position that he
could not sign the agreement as it had not been presented to Local 1855 members
and considered by them. The members of Local 1855 rejected the merger pro-
vided by the agreement, and elected to disaffiliate from I.L.A. and form an independ-
ent union with the title of Insular Labor Organization, (ILO), Independent, herein
-called ILO .9
On September 14, 1961, the ILO petitioned the Board for certification as collec-
tive-bargaining representative of a unit of Sea-Land's stevedores at the port of
Ponce, and other employees at this port, including truckdrivers, motor operators,
checkers, gatemen, hatch tenders, mechanics, and mechanics' helpers. The Regional
Director for the Twenty-fourth Region dismissed the petition on September 15,
1961, on the ground that the unit requested was inappropriate. The ILO filed a
request for review with the Board. The Board granted the review on January 24,
1962, and on June 8, 1962, reversed the Regional Director, and held that the one
-port unit proposed by petitioner ILO was appropriate, and directed an election
-therein with the Intervening I.L.A. unions on the ballot as well as ILO.10 The
Regional Director scheduled an election for July 2, 1962, as directed by the Board.
On July 2, 1962, an election was held in the unit of Sea-Land's Ponce employees.
Of the 104 eligible to vote, 100 voted. The ILO received 77 votes and the I L.A.
unions, which included Local 1903, received 3 votes. There were 19 challenged
votes and 1 vote was void. The ILO was certified by the Board as the collective-
bargaining representative on July It, 1962.11
8 A new I.L.A. District Council composed of all I L.A. locals, including the former I L A.
-locals and the former UTM locals, and newly established islandwide checker and hatch-
tender locals was established, with Juan Perez Roa, president of San Juan UTM Local 1740,
-as president.
9 The prior August 29, 1961, the I L.A , I.L A. District Council, and I.L.A. Locals 1575
and 1855 had filed a petition for certification as collective-bargaining representative of a
unit of Sea-Land's stevedoring and related employees at the ports of San Juan and Ponce.
By consent agreement with Respondent, an election was scheduled by the Board for Sep-
tember 22, 1961. On September 13, 1961, the UTM locals withdrew the request to inter-
vene they had made on August 29, 1961. This was due to the merger agreement reached
on September 11, 1961. The election was held on September 22, 1961, as scheduled. Sea-
Land's employees at San Juan eligible to vote, voted by a large plurality for representation
by the I L.A. unions. However, Sea-Land's employees in Ponce did not vote in view of
their decision to disaffiliate and form the independent ILO union. The Regional Director
withheld certification in view of the representation proceedings initiated by ILO on
September 14, 1961, discussed infra, and the appeal ILO had taken therein from the
Regional Director's dismissal of ILO's petition for certification on September 15, 1961.
10 Sea-Land Service, Inc, 137 NLRB 546.
"On July 23, 1962, the I L.A , LL A. District Council, and I L.A. Local 1575 were
certified as the collective-bargaining representative of all of employees doing Sea-Land's
stevedoring and related work at San Juan. There are 200 employees in the unit. UTM
Local 1740 at San Juan, then affiliated with I.L.A., did not seek to be part of the I.L.A.
unions certified in view of the merger agreement of September 11, 1961. Its members
were not employees of Sea-Land, and did work for Sea-Land only when Waterman, with
whom it had a collective-bargaining agreement through the Puerto Rican Shipping Asso-
ciation, handled loading or unloading of certain of Sea-Land's ships, The merger agree-
SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC., ETC. 935'
B. Sea-Land 's operations, and its curtailing of work assignments of
employee members of ILO
In addition to terminal facilities at San Juan and Ponce , Puerto Rico, Respondent.
has terminal facilities at Newark , New Jersey , in the port of New York ( its main,
office and place of business ), at Jacksonville , Florida, Houston , Texas, and Oak-
land and Long Beach , California . It has collective -bargaining contracts with I.L.A.
and its locals for employees at Newark , Jacksonville , and Houston , as well as at
San Juan and Ponce.
Respondent 's C-2 ships regularly sail on Saturday and Wednesday from Newark
to Puerto Rico. The ship sailing on Saturday reaches San Juan on Wednesday,12'
is scheduled to sail for Ponce on Thursday, to arrive there Friday, and sail from,
Ponce the same day for Newark , arriving there Tuesday. The ship sailing from
Newark on Wednesday arrives in San Juan on Sunday and begins the return
voyage to Newark on Monday , arriving there on Friday. It is not scheduled to-
sail to Ponce.
There have been occasions when the weekly visit of the C-2 ship could not be made-
to Ponce because of weather conditions or demand for cargo space or other
economic factors. Sea-Land started a practice in September 1960 of sending from
Ponce to San Juan a 25-man gang of its Ponce stevedores to load and unload trailer'
vans of cargo from and on C-2's scheduled to arrive in Ponce on Friday but re-
scheduled to return to Newark directly from San Juan . Another 25 -man gang was-
employed in the Ponce warehouse of Sea-Land the following day to strip the vans.
hauled over the road from San Juan.
In footnote 17 of the Decision and Direction of Election in Sea-Land Service, Inc.,
137 NLRB 546, it is stated that there were seven occasions in 1961 when these-
gangs were sent from Ponce to San Juan. When Frank Bailey arrived in San Juan,
in April 1962 to take over as manager of Sea-Land's operations in Puerto Rico,13
the C-2's had not sailed to Ponce for 7 consecutive weeks. Its Ponce cargo was
handled at San Juan by Sea-Land 's Ponce stevedores . However, from the time-
he took over as manager , the C-2's sailed to Ponce as scheduled until June 22, 1962.
The ship scheduled to dock at Ponce on June 29 , 1962, did not make the trip to
that port . 14 The C-2 's have not sailed to Ponce since June 22, 1962, although-
scheduled to do so.15
Beginning on July 22 , 1962 , Respondent 's C-4's, carrying cargo in vans and some
break-bulk or conventional cargo , began arriving in San Juan . 16 Manager Bailey'
testified that the C-4's first arrived in Ponce about 7 to 10 days after the first arrival
in San Juan . Ernesto Ruiz Curbelo, dock superintendent , municipal piers of
Ponce, and Ismaro Torruello, president , administrative board of management,
municipal piers of Ponce, testified that the first arrival of the C-4 in Ponce was
on September 10, 1962. Ramon Mejias , president of ILO , testified that he did'
went of September 11, 1961, provided that the members of Local 1575 would decide in an-
election to be held about a year from that date , or sooner if they wished , whether they
favored merger of their local with UTM Local 1740. There is no evidence that any attempt
was made to hold such an election It appears that Local 1575 and its members have-
wished to maintain the local 's identity separate from UTM Local 1740 The latter local
is estimated to have approximately 4,000 members.
12 Bailey testified that this ship was scheduled to reach San Juan on Thursday. How-
ever, the sailing schedules of Respondent Introduced by General Counsel, which Bailey
said were representative , has this ship scheduled to reach San Juan on Wednesday
10 Respondent ' s Puerto Rican operation is centralized under the control of a district
manager in San Juan Its principal office for this operation is in San Juan where clerical'
and payroll records for the Ponce employees are maintained Final settlement of griev-
ances and labor disputes takes place in San Juan. The Respondent's major policy deci-
sions are formulated in Newark, New Jersey , and then passed on to the San Juan office
which completely supervises operations in Ponce. The stevedoring superintendent from
San Juan also supervises the overall loading and unloading of ships at Ponce , the loading
plans for all port calls are made at San Juan, and all ships destined for Ponce make a
prior stop at San Juan . See Sea-Land Service, Inc., 137 NLRB 546.
14 This was just 3 days before the Board -conducted election in which Sea -Land's Ponce
employees selected ILO to be their collective -bargaining representative.
is The handling of the C-2 cargo vans and the related warehousing work had furnished
the bulk of employment to Sea-Land ' s stevedores and other dockworker employees at Ponce.
10 Respondent also operates larger freighters called jumbos to San Juan . These ships
carry freight only in trailer vans. They carry 476 vans while the C-l's carry 166 vans
`936 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not know when the first C-4 arrived . If Bailey's testimony is credited the first
C-4 arrived in Ponce sometime during July 29 to August 2, 1962. In any event,
a C-4 has arrived weekly from Newark in San Juan since July 22, and , and in Ponce
since shortly thereafter . They carry from San Juan to Ponce trailer vans of cargo
that had been brought to Ponce up to June 22 , 1962, by the C-2's, or had been hauled
to Ponce overland when a C-2 did not sail to Ponce as scheduled , and the vans
were unloaded in San Juan . They also carry to Ponce from Newark Ponce-con-
signed cargo that had previously been carried on the C-2's scheduled to sail to Ponce
after the stop at San Juan.
As will be discussed infra, from the arrival of the first C-4 in Ponce Respond-
ent has assigned to Waterman the stevedoring and related dockwork at this port in
connection with the handling of the cargo vans of these ships, instead of doing
this work directly as it had when the C-2's came to Ponce. Waterman's stevedores
and other dockworker employees are members of UTM Local 1903 with which
Waterman has a collective -bargaining contract through the Puerto Rican Steamship
Association . While the C-4 's are the property of Waterman , they are leased to
Sea-Land under a "bare-boat " charter. Under this type of agreement , Sea-Land has
exclusive control of these ships , its personnel and all other operational phases,
and also of the attendant operations at dockside including the loading and unloading.17
Since July 5 or 6 , 1962, the handling in San Juan of the Ponce -consigned vans
of cargo on C-2's scheduled to dock at Ponce has been assigned to its employees
in San Juan who are members of I.L.A. Local 1575 . These vans were hauled to
Ponce over the road on a specially constructed chassis pulled by a truck tractor
until brought to Ponce by the C-4's beginning in August or early September 1962.
It is clear from the evidence that the vans have been stripped at the Waterman
warehouse in Ponce on and after they were brought to Ponce on the C-4's, and
handled by Waterman and its employee members of UTM Local 1903. It appears
that these vans were stripped at Respondent 's own warehouse during July. How-
ever, only gangs of 8 to 10 employees were engaged during that time to do this
work instead of the gangs of 25 previously employed.
C. Events showing motive for discrimination against Respondent ILO member
employees, and its refusal to bargain with ILO
1. Events before the Board election of July 2, 1962
On June 22 , 1962, when a C-2 was being unloaded at Ponce, Respondent's
Stevedoring Supervisor Joe Braseau said to hatch tender Celestino Perez and
stevedores Virgilio Echevarra and Efrain Jiminez that if the ILO won the election
no more C-2 ships would stop at Ponce and their cargo would be handled at San
Juan by Respondent's I.L.A. member employees there and not by the gangs of
Respondent's Ponce employees that had been handling this cargo since September
1960. Ramon Mejias brought this statement of Braseau to the attention of Montero,
Respondent's terminal manager . The latter replied that Braseau was in charge
on ship, but he was in charge of the terminal facilities . No action was taken by
Respondent disavowing any connection between it and I .L.A. with respect to any
action that Respondent might take which would affect the employment of the
Ponce employees.18
On June 26 , 1962, Mejias wrote Montero a letter in which he made reference to
rumors that the C-2 scheduled to arrive in Ponce on Friday, June 29, would not
come to Ponce. He said that this circumstance would hurt the chances of ILO
and favor those of the I L.A. in the election to be held the following Monday, July
2. Montero replied on June 27. He stated that the ship , Beauregard, would not
come to Ponce on Friday , June 29, as scheduled . His explanation was that it had
been resceduled to return to Newark directly from San Juan to permit it to reach
there on July 2. According to Montero , if it sailed to Ponce, it would not reach
17 Waterman also handles the stevedore and related dock work In San Juan for the C-4's.
Waterman ' s employees at San Juan are represented by UTM Local 1740 I L A Local 1575
has continually protested the assignment of this work to Waterman employees reps esented
by UTM Local 1740
18 Braseau was the supervisor of Perez, the hatch tender, who was foreman of 21 em-
ployees working at the hatches on the C-2 ship in Ponce on June 22. He assisted the
stevedoring superintendent who was in full charge of the loading and unloading operation.
In the absence of the stevedoring superintendent , he was in charge He had the authority
to recommend discharges I find Braseau to be a supervisor within the meaning of the
Act. Perez ' testimony as to the statements made by Braseau is corroborated by Echevarra
and Jiminez . Respondent offered no rebuttal testimony.
SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC., ETC. 937
Newark until July 3, necessitating its being held over in that port until July 5 in
view of the national holiday on July 4.19 However, the evidence shows that an
ILO group from Ponce unloaded this C-2 in San Juan on June 28. If it had sailed
on June 28 it would have arrived in Ponce on June 29, have been unloaded and
loaded on that date, and could have set sail for Newark that date, arriving in Newark
on July 2 as scheduled. As previously stated, all C-2's had docked at Ponce since
the prior April as scheduled?° No evidence was presented in Montero's letter
or by Bailey's testimony that would show the inability of the Beauregard to meet its
schedule.
On June 28, when the gang of Ponce employees was handling the Ponce cargo of
the C-2 (the Beauregard) at San Juan, Captain Bradley, head of I.L.A., appeared,
and asked Ramon Mejias to go to the Board's Regional Office the next morning with
him so he could withdraw ILO's petition for certification which had given rise to the
election that the Board had directed for July 2. When he refused, I.L.A. Vice
President Moreno, who accompanied Bradley, said to him that they would go
to Ponce and talk to Respondent's Ponce employees. Captain Bradley and other
I.L.A. representatives went to Ponce on June 29, and in the evening Bradley talked
to Respondent's Ponce employees about the forthcoming election on July 2. He
told them that the I L.A. would take steps to see that they would lose the stevedoring
work at Ponce if they voted for ILO in the election.21
2. Events after the Board election
On June 28, 1962, Eusebio G. Moreno, vice president of I.L.A. for Puerto Rico,
and Guillermo Ortiz, president of I.L.A. Local 1575, told Bailey in San Juan that
if the gang of Respondent's Ponce employees appeared to work the Ponce cargo
on the Beauregard, they would be thrown into the river. However, Captain Wil-
liam Bradley, who was present, said to let them come, and Moreno and Ortiz agreed.
Respondent's Ponce employees, thereupon agreed to go to San Juan and unload
the Ponce cargo. They appeared at San Juan and handled the Ponce cargo on
June 28. This was the last gang from Ponce that handled at San Juan the Ponce
trailer van cargo of the C-2 ships. Bailey testified that the Ponce employees refused
to handle this C-2 cargo after June 28. His testimony is that the refusal by the
ILO members was made to Montero, who in turn informed him that it had been
made. However, while the ILO members refused to go to San Juan on June 28
until they received the assurance of safety from Bradley, through Bailey and
Montero, there is no evidence of a refusal to handle C-2 cargo in San Juan after
that date other than the conclusionary testimony given by Bailey. Bailey's testi-
mony is merely a flat assertion that the Ponce employees refused to handle the
cargo at San Juan. The evidentiary aspects of "names, dates, and places" with
respect to the alleged refusal are missing.
No evidence was offered that the I.L.A. position of allowing the Ponce employees
to come to San Juan in safety, as disclosed by Bradley's countermanding of Moreno's
and Ortiz' threat of June 28, and I.L.A.'s willingness to permit the Ponce employees
to handle the cargo, had been changed. Ramon Mejias and his son, David Mejias,
secretary of ILO, denied that the Ponce employees refused to handle the Ponce
cargo at San Juan. They testified they informed Montero, Respondent's Ponce
manager after June 28, 1962, that the ILO members were willing to handle C-2
cargo in San Juan,,but Montero informed them that he had orders from Manager
Bailey not to send any more gangs to San Juan. Montero's testimony does not
include any reference to the refusal. Moreover, Bailey's attempt at explaining his
conclusionary statement appears to indicate that Respondent in his person and
that of Montero were of the opinion that ILO's members' refusal prior to I.L.A.'s
assurance of safety continued, even though they handled the Ponce cargo in San
19 Bailey testified that the ship would not arrive in Newark until July 4 if it docked at
Ponce on June 29
20 Montero stated in the letter that July 4 was as sacred to the Americans in the con-
tinental United States as Good Friday was to the inhabitants of Puerto Rico While the
LL A contract covering workers at Newark very likely designed July 4 as a national
holiday, it hardly contained any prohibition against working on that date at a premium
rate.
211 base this finding on Ramon Mejias' testimony of his conversation with Bradley at
San Juan on June 28, his conversation with persons who called on him at his hone in
Ponce on June 29 to tell him Bradley wished to see him, the stipulated testimony of
Reporter B. Rodriquez Velazquez of the Ponce newspaper, the "El Dia," as corroborated
by the stipulated testimony of Timeteo Santos who was present at the dune 29 meeting
in Ponce.
938 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Juan on June 28 after they received the assurance. I credit the testimony of Ramon
and David Mejias. I do not credit Bailey's testimony that ILO members refused
to handle the C-2 cargo in San Juan after I.L.A.'s assurance on June 28 that they
would not be harmed by I.L.A. members.
On July 7, 1962, ILO President Mejias addressed a letter to Montero, Respond-
ent's Ponce terminal manager, in which he requested a meeting in Montero's office
on July 10 "to discuss a stipulation for recognition to be effective immediately and
to continue in effect until both parties sign a complete collective-bargaining agree-
ment, which is presently being prepared for your approval." 22 Montero acknowl-
edged receipt on July 7 of the letter but never replied to it. He said he would call
San Juan, but Mejias did not hear further from him. Mejias made several requests
to Montero up to July 10 to meet with him to discuss recognition and other relevant
matters in view of the outcome of the July 2 election. Montero replied that he
had no instructions from Bailey in San Juan to do so. On July 11, 1962, the
Board issued its written certification of ILO as the collective-bargaining representa-
tive of Respondent's Ponce stevedores and related employees. Montero acknowl-
edged receipt of a copy of the certification on July 12. On or about July 15, 1962,
Montero told Mejias that gangs of Respondent's Ponce employees would no longer
be sent to San Juan. Also, about this time, tractors that had been used to haul
the chassis-mounted trailer vans of cargo from shipside in Ponce to Respondent's
warehouse or adjoining areas where temporarily stored were moved to San Juan.
On July 14 or 15, Mejias sent to Respondent's Manager Bailey in San Juan a
proposed stipulation incorporating what Mejias had asked Montero on July 7 to
meet on and discuss 23 On July 18, 1962, Manager Bailey mailed, or caused to be
mailed, a letter to ILO President Mejias in which he stated that Respondent did not
find the stipulation acceptable for signature, but it was ready and willing to negotiate
a complete contract as soon as a proposal was submitted, and that he trusted that a
proposal would be forthcoming in the near future. Mejias complained to Montero
again on the morning of July 19 that the C-2's were not coming to Ponce, Respondent
had moved the tractors to San Juan, and that it was using only 6 to 8 men in
its Ponce warehouse instead of the 50 men who made up the 2 gangs who handled the
cargo vans in San Juan and stripped them at the Ponce warehouse. Montero again
said he knew nothing as he took his orders from San Juan.
Shortly thereafter, on July 19, Mejias received Bailey's letter of July 18 He
called a meeting of the ILO members and read the letter to them. They discussed the
letter and the whole gamut of matters affecting their employment since the last
C-2 came to Ponce on June 22 and they had last handled the cargo of a C-2 in San
Juan on June 28, including Montero's replies to all requests for negotiations that he
had no authority or instructions from San Juan to do so. The assembled members
concluded that the conditions existing prior to the election had not changed after the
election. They expressed dissatisfaction with the failure of the C-2's to dock at Ponce,
the discontinuance of the sending of gangs to San Juan, and Montero's reply to
Mejias' request for bargaining that he had no authority to bargain. The members
agreed that they would demand that Respondent reestablish the normal state of
affairs, and sit down and negotiate.
The six to eight ILO members employed in the warehouse and David Mejias, who
was Respondent's chief checker in the warehouse, did not return to work. About
12:30 to 1 o'clock at noon, ILO established a picket line outside the gate. There
were eight carrying signs and a relief for each sign bearer. The remainder of the
ILO members who were at the meeting massed in front of the warehouse until they
22 As stated supra, footnote 7, in 1961, the Board had set aside the collective-bargaining
contract under which ILO's predecessor, I.L A. Local 1855, had been operating since 1958.
Apparently, an oral understanding existed in lieu of the contract set aside David
Mejias, secretary of ILO and former I.L.A. Local 1855 member, testified there was even
a checkoff.
The proposed stipulation provided: That Respondent in view of the Board's certifica-
tion recognized ILO as collective-bargaining representative; that the employees in the
appropriate unit would become members of ILO within 31 days after the signing of the
stipulation, or 31 days after the date they commenced employment, whichever was later,
and maintain membership in ILO thereafter ; that Respondent would check off dues and
initiation fees monthly upon receipt of authorization from each individual employee;
that ILO would submit a contract proposal to Respondent covering wages, hours, welfare,
and other matters of bargaining, and that the agreement reached by Respondent and ILO
would be incorporated in the stipulation by amendment; that nothing in the stipulation
prevented the amending of the stipulation in any respect ; and that the stipulation would
be effective for 2 years from the date inserted on the first line of the stipulation as the
date it was entered into by Respondent and ILO.
SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC., ETC. 939
dispersed. Mejias testified that the picket signs bore the legends: "We demand the
ships come to Ponce," and "We demand the certified union be recognized," and
"We ask that they sit down to negotiate," and that "gangs be sent to San Juan."
Police Sergeant Antonio Ortiz Reyes, who was present, testified that a sign had the
legend "We are on strike-we protest against the acts of Mr. Montero," and another
sign carried a cartoon of Montero, and underneath, the words "The Dictator." I
credit both Mejias and Ortiz. The picketing lasted until the evening, was resumed at
6 a.m. on July 20, and lasted until 4:30 to 5 o'clock p.m. Mejias terminated the
picketing following a telephone conversation he had with Manuel Sanchez Rivera,
director of the ports authority of Puerto Rico, and Ismaro Torruella, president of
the board of administrative management , of the municipal pier of Ponce.
Rivera and Torruella telephoned Mejias from San Juan and told him that in a
meeting they had that day with Manager Bailey and Alphonso Valencia of Sea-
Land,24 Bailey said that he would meet with Mejias in San Juan the following day,
and that Valencia would meet with him if he was not able to do so.25 Both Sanchez
Rivera and Torruella counseled Mejias to instruct the members of ILO to report
for the warehouse work on July 21. Mejias met with Montero about 6:30 on July 20
and informed him that the men would be on hand on July 21 26 He also told Montero
what Sanchez Rivera said to him about Bailey agreeing to meet with him the next
day in San Juan. Montero told Mejias that he had been instructed by Bailey to ask
Arsenio Bonano Fuentes to obtain workers if the ILO members refused to work on
July 2127
24 Valencia is president of Sea-Land Sales, Inc. This corporation handles the sales and
sales promotion of Respondent. It appears to me that it does work exclusively for, and
is part of, the controlled operation that conducts the business for McLean Industries of
furnishing freighter service between ports in continental United States and ports in
Puerto Rico. Valencia participated in this meeting as one who acted on behalf of Sea-
Land. The evidence warrants a finding, and I find, that Sea-Land Sales of Puerto Rico,
Inc., and Valencia as its president, have identity of interest with Respondent Sea-Land,
and their acts and other conduct are the conduct of Respondent, notwithstanding the
artificial separation between Respondent and Sea-Land Sales by reason of separate corpo-
rate identities.
22 Sanchez Rivera had arranged the meeting at the Ports Authority for July 20 as a re-
sult of Torruella's request to him to use his efforts to see if Respondent Sea-Land could
be persuaded to resume sending the C-2's to Ponce and sending the Ponce stevedores to
San Juan. The meeting was also attended by Ernesto Ruiz, superintendent, municipal pier
of Ponce ; Francisco Jiminiz Mercado , executive assistant to Sanchez Rivera ; and Perez
Colon of Fomento Economico, the development authority. At the meeting, Bailey stated
that Respondent recognized that ILO was the certified collective-bargaining representative
and Respondent was willing to discuss a contract proposal forwarded by Mejias. Bailey
said that Mejias had sent Respondent an agreement not a proposal. Valencia said that if
the men requested by their Ponce terminal to report on July 21 did not report it would
ask members of UTM Local 1903 to fill the jobs. Montero in a letter dated that same
-day, July 20, informed Mejias that eight stevedores, three clerks, one driver, and three
finger-lift operators would be needed for work in the warehouse on July 21 Bailey said
that he and officials of Respondent coming down from New York would meet with Mejias
the next day in San Juan to discuss matters with him. Bailey and Valencia also said
that the C-2's did not sail to Ponce because the demands on Respondent for carrying cargo
between continental ports and Puerto Rico required the saving of the day that it took for
the trip from San Juan to Ponce. They also attributed the discontinuance of the service
to Ponce to an "instability" in relations with labor unions in Ponce and in ports in the
continental United States. They also said that this service to Ponce would be resumed
shortly.
Neither Bailey nor Valencia discussed the nature of the additional demands for the
carrying of cargo between continental United States ports and Puerto Rico that required
the canceling of the Ponce trip for the C-2's just about the time of the Board election and
thereafter. It is to be noted that Respondent had no problem in sending the C-218 to
Ponce the prior April, May, and June up to June 29 The so-called tight schedule of
Respondent forcing it to cancel the Ponce sailing apparently was relieved when it sent
the C-4 ships to Ponce whose trailer vans of cargo were handled by members of UTM
Local 1903.
26 They reported for work at 8 a.m. on July 21 and worked until shortly before noon
on the following July 30.
27 Bonano had been a member of I.L.A. Local 1855 Fie did not become a member of
ILO. He favored I L.A.'s plan to merge Local 1855 with UTM Local 1903. He testified
he was not a member of Local 1903.
940 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mejias was in San Juan early on July 21 prepared to talk to Bailey and officials
of Respondent coming from New York . He first went to the office of George L.
Weasler, Esq ., attorney for ILO , and stated to him that Bailey had agreed to meet
with him. He asked Weasler to call Bailey and make the arragements . Weasler
telephoned Bailey. Bailey refused to meet with Mejias. He said to Weasler that he
would not meet with Mejias until he sent to him a complete contract proposal. He
also said to Weasler that some tractors had been damaged during the strike 28
On July 24, 1962, ILO President Mejis sent to Manager Bailey a complete contract
in Spanish . It's provisions covered the handling of the trailer van cargo on the
C-2's and warehouse work.29 On July 26, Montero informed Mejias that he had
instructions from Bailey to terminate his employment of checking cargo vans
hauled over the road from San Juan as there was no further need for this work.
He also said that he could have 3 days' work a week by working in the warehouse.
Mejias declined the warehouse work. He said that the members of ILO had decided
to pay him a salary.
On July 30, 1962, about 11 a.m ., Ramon Mejias saw his son David in front of
the union hall. He asked him why he was not working. David replied that he was
ill, and had permission from Anthony Duen, Montero's assistant, to be off from
work until August 2. He had a doctor's certificate. Ramon then asked David if he
had talked to Montero about the absence and had shown him the certificate. He in-
structed David to talk to Montero . The latter went to Montero 's office , and a short
time later returned with a letter dated July 30 to him from Montero. In the letter,
Montero stated that statements David had made after the strike on July 20 to the
effect that during the strike "all possible measures had to be taken to affect everything
concerning Sea-Land" had prompted him to relieve David of the position of chief
clerk because he found that his holding that position was incompatible with his
position in ILO. As previously stated, David was ILO's secretary.30
Upon reading the letter , ILO President Ramon Mejias issued a call for a union
meeting at the union hall. The six to eight ILO members working in the warehouse
left work about 11:45 to attend the meeting. They and other ILO members reached
a majority in numbers present at the union hall at 12:10 p.m. and a meeting was held
at that time . Ramon Mejias again enumerated to the members ILO's grievances
against Respondent with the additions of the refusal of Bailey or other officials to
meet with him on July 21 although Bailey and Valencia said they would , the failure
by Respondent to acknowledge the contract proposal sent to Bailey on July 24,
the termination of his services as hatch tender checking the vans hauled over the
road , and the termination of David Mejias' services as chief clerk . He read to them
Montero's letter to David . The members agreed that Respondent would again be
asked to recognize ILO as their Board certified collective -bargaining representative,
During the strike, ignition wires of three finger lifts were cut, and upholstery of five
automobiles , consigned to Southern Auto Sales, was slashed . The finger lifts and auto-
mobiles were located in the warehouse. The evidence does not show the identity of the
persons responsible for the damage or that it was initiated or condoned by ILO. Hilarlo
Rodriquez, a brother of Mejias , employed as a guard , was terminated on July 20 , but was
put back to work in half an hour. Montero told him it was a mistake after talking to
Prado, Bailey 's assistant , by telephone . Guards employed by Respondent are included in
the unit represented by ILO. Respondent engaged the Wackenhut Company to furnish
guards These guards were present at Respondent's Ponce terminal from July 20 on
p In the contract proposal ILO submitted to Respondent on July 24, 1962 , it incorpo-
rated provisions in the contract I L.A. had with Waterman and other members of the
Puerto Rican Steamship Association dealing with the handling of conventional cargo.
This was to meet the demand of Respondent that the contract proposal provide for the
handling of conventional cargo. Respondent also offered testimony that to some extent it
operated prior to July 1962 three ships carrying only conventional cargo to San Juan
and Ponce from the west coast, and that this cargo was handled by Waterman and its
employee members of the UTM Local. Respondent 's counsel argues that this is precedent
for Respondent 's claim it is not discriminating against ILO member employees by in-
directly employing members of UTM Local 1903 through Waterman, its sister subsidiary
of McLean Industries , to unload at Ponce the cargo vans , as well as the conventional cargo,
coming from New Jersey on the C-4's.
$" Montero testified that when work was resumed in the warehouse on July 21 , following
the strike , the warehousemen were much slower in doing the work assigned to them al-
though there was considerable work to be done, that he got in touch with his assistant,
Duen , who had not been working , to report to the warehouse and take over the supervising
duties that David Mejias had been performing . Duen reported to the warehouse and
took over these duties in an effort to move cargo faster through the warehouse.
SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC., ETC.
e
941
that Respondent respond to itheir sending to it of a contract proposal, and that it
clarify the letter handed to David Mejias that morning. Ramon and David Mejias
were designated to talk to Montero. Ramon and David Mejias went to Montero's
office. Montero, however, had left the office for his home preparatory to flying to
San Juan that afternoon on business to Respondent's office there. Duen said he did
not have authority to discuss any matters with them. Ramon and David Mejias and
the other members returned to the union hall about 1:30 p.m., and at that time
decided to establish pickets at Respondent's Ponce terminal until someone in au-
thority discussed their grievances with them.
The ILO members proceeded to the municipal pier of Ponce where Respondent's
terminal is located. The members who had been working in the warehouse did not
return to work. They and the other members massed in front of the warehouse until
the majority of them including President Mejias were persuaded to leave the pier
and gather outside the pier gates. They then established a picket line. Eight pickets
were carrying signs, and there were eight others who relieved them. 1 he picket
sign legends were the same as those on the picket signs used in the July 19 and 20
strike with the addition of legends stating that the ILO members demanded the
reinstatement of David Mejias; "Sea-Land abuses the ILO workers"; "Fidel in Cuba
and Montero at Sea-Land"; and "Duen, Montero's satellite."
Later that afternoon, Ramon Mejias received a telephone call from Montero in
San Juan. When, in response to Montero's inquiry as to the reason for the picketing
and strike at the warehouse, Mejias began to air ILO's grievances, Montero gave
the telephone to J. R. Prado, Bailey's assistant at San Juan, who listened to them.
Mejias asked Prado to withdraw the letter, but the latter replied that the action
was a company matter. He also stated to Mejias that he should remember that
ILO was a small union. Montero then asked Mejias if he wished to have the letter
qualified. He had already to told Mejias that while his son David was no longer chief
clerk he still had the job of clerk or checker 31 Both Montero and Mejias decided
that any action to clarify Montero's letter would await the latter's return to Ponce.-
The picketing was resumed at 6 a.m. on July 31. While the pickets were outside the
gates, about 50 to 60 ILO members were inside the gates in front of the warehouse.
Between 9:30 and 10 a.m., they were persuaded to move outside the gate. About 10
a.m., Montero discussed with Ramon Mejias his letter to David Mejias of July 30.
They discussed the sending of another letter by Montero to David to clarify the
July 30 letter. They agreed that another letter should be sent to David informing
him that he would continue in the job of clerk, but would no longer be chief clerk.
He would be guaranteed his regular hours which were 8 hours a day from Monday
through Friday. Montero then had a letter typed by his secretary.
In the letter Montero stated that the only change in David Mejias' employment
was that he was on longer "chief clerk." He was to continue working as clerk at his
regular hours. Montero's letter concluded with the statement that "We trust that
this will clarify any doubt you may have about the matter." The original of the
letter was delivered to David Mejias about 10 a.m. Montero about that time met
again with Ramon Mejias at the stairway leading to his office. He read the letter
to Mejias, and gave him a copy, in the presence of Sergeant Ortiz and Lieutenant
Rafeal Irizarry, also of the police. Montero said that he wished to discuss the letter
with the ILO members. Mejias returned to Montero's office about 11 am. and in-
formed him that the ILO members had unanimously decided they would not return
311 find that David was not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. He worked in
the warehouse under the direct supervision of Anthony Duen and another official of Re-
spondent by the name of Sotomayer. He gave instructions to the clerks, sometimes
numbering as high as 21, but since July 5 only about 6 to 8, and the 2 stevedores who
worked with them. He worked with his hands with them His recommendations as to
discipline and discharge were given substantial consideration by his direct superiors as
well as by Montero. Montero had previously indicated in a letter to David that he had
been highly pleased with his work. The warehouse personnel were hired from the rotating
list. The names at the head of the list at the time personnel were hired were the ones
hired David was paid on an hourly basis for time worked, the same rate as the checkers,
but as chief checker he worked a minimum of 40 hours a week. A clerk or checker worked
only a minimum of 3 days a week. David was a gang leader or minor foreman. See
Northern Virginia Steel Corporation, 132 NLRB 714, 715, enfd. 300 F. 2d 168 (CA. 4).
However, in the position of chief clerk or chief checker, he was a management or confi-
dential employee. Respondent had a right to have some one in that position who did not
as closely espouse the cause of the Union as David Mejias did in his position as its
secretary.
'942 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
,to work and the picketing would be continued until his son David was returned to his
job as chief clerk and Respondent 's representatives negotiated with the representatives
of ILO.32
Montero telephoned Bailey and apprised him of all the circumstances up to that
,time. Bailey instructed Montero to ask UTM Local 1903 for men to man the
warehouse jobs. About 12:15 p.m., Montero telephoned Pedro Rosas, president
of that local, and asked him to send men to the Respondent's warehouse for the
warehouse jobs. Rosas communicated with Bonano (see supra, footnote 27) and
Bonano appeared at the warehouse with a group of 20 between 1:15 and 1:30
,p.m. About 8 or 10 of this group were selected by Montero and his assistant,
Anthony Duen, to do the warehouse work. They began working between 1:30
-and 1:45 p.m. Workers have been selected in this manner for warehouse work
-since July 31. ILO pickets and others, about 20, moved from the pier gates
to the front of the warehouse when Bonano and the others began working.33 When
Jose Santiago Santos, a gateman or guard, reported for work on July 31 to relieve
Juan Rodriquez Sotero, Montero informed Santiago that he and the other six
gatemen were suspended until further notice.34
About 6 or 6:30 p.m., on July 31, Respondent attempted to move a refrigerated
van full of meat to the Tropical City Industries in Ponce about three-tenths of a
mile from the terminal. Two policemen on motorcycles and Sergeant Ortiz and
two other policemen, Marsini and Santiago, in a jeep accompanied the tractor-
drawn trailer.35 Eight ILO pickets remained at the pier gates, and the remainder
.of the persons who had been at the gates went towards Comerio Street where the
union hall is located. On Comerio Street, some of the persons who had stood
outside the gates at the Ponce pier and who had proceeded in the direction of
'Comerio Street when the tractor began hauling the refrigerated trailer in the direc-
tion of Tropical Ice Industries, parked an automobile across Comerio Street obstruct-
ing the tractor-drawn trailer. Others ascended to the roof of a two-story building,
and some of them began throwing rocks. The windshield of a tractor was broken
and the driver was hit by them. Policeman Marsini was hit in the leg. The police-
man removed the automobile, and the tractor-drawn trailer proceeded to Tropical
City on Hostos Avenue. On Hostos Avenue, an ILO member by the name of
Echevarria wounded with a knife a person he claimed was a strikebreaker. The
wound was in the arm or the side. In the meantime, about 80 or 90 persons
2 Ramon Mejias and his son David testified that the ILO members through Ramon
Mejias offered to return to work in the warehouse on July 31. I have credited Montero's
testimony that Ramon Mejias Informed Montero on July 31 that the ILO members had
unanimously decided to refuse to return to work in the warehouse and to continue the pick-
eting until Respondent restored David Mejias to his position of chief clerk and sat down
and bargained with ILO representatives. This testimony is corroborated by the testimony
.of Mariano Santiago Ruiz, treasurer of ILO and member of its negotiating committee,
that there was a union meeting on July 31 , and ILO members decided to continue the
strike, and by the testimony of Sergeant Ortiz of the police. The independent events and
.circumstances that occurred on July 31 and thereafter , findings of which are made herein,
also corroborate the finding that ILO members decided on July 31 to continue to strike
and protest by picketing until David Mejias was restored to the position of chief clerk and
Respondent sat down to negotiate. The demand that Respondent negotiate obviously in-
cluded a demand for a meeting on all the grievances ILO members had against Respondent
as well as to negotiate a collective-bargaining contract.
3s About 172 persons were employed from July 31 to September 1, 1962, at various times
and for varying hours through requests made by Respondent to UTM Local 1903 for men
to apply for the warehouse work. The bulk of this number has been members of Local
1903. Six or seven of this number have been members of ILO. Some, like Bonano, have
not been members of either Local 1903 or ILO. In a few instances, Montero has em-
ployed members of ILO who have gone to him directly and asked for work.
3h At the hearing, Montero testified that the gatemen were members of ILO and that
while the ILO members were on strike there was no reason why they should be working as
guards. The gatemen filed an unfair labor practice charge against Respondent charging
it with a discriminatory discharge. The Regional Director on October 28, 1962, refused
to issue a complaint. He stated in his letter of that date to the guards that the investiga-
tion showed that Respondent "took the precautionary measure of dispensing with the
service of all the ILO gatemen until its dispute with the ILO is settled."
Lieutenant Lopez of the police, who was at the pier, was at Tropical City when the
trailer reached there. He was the superior of Sergeant Ortiz and the other policemen.
SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC., ETC. 943
gathered across the street from Tropical City. There is no evidence of any illegal
activity in the vicinity.of Tropical City while the trailer van was being disconnected
from the trailer.36
ILO members began picketing at the terminal gates about' 6 a.m. on August 1.
There were eight .carrying signs and eight resting. They-changed places every
hour. At 10 a.m., another refrigerated trailer was hauled to Tropical City.
Lieutenant Irizarry, Ortiz and five other policemen accompanied the trailer van and
tractor.- There were persons on the roof of the two-story building on Comerio
Street as on the previous evening . Some again threw rocks. One of them,
William Carrasquillo de Jesus, was apprehended. The trailer van was taken to
Tropical City. Sergeant Ortiz, who also testified as to these events, then returned
to the pier where he stayed until 9 or 10 p.m. when ILO discontinued picketing.
I credit Sergeant Ortiz' testimony that ILO members picketed the Ponce terminal
of Respondent from August 2 until 16 with a varying number of pickets, and that
at times there would be no pickets.37
On August 1, 1963, Montero personally handed Ramo Mejias a letter to him
dated July 26, signed by Bailey. In the letter, Bailey acknowledged receipt of the
original and a copy of the contract proposal in Spanish that Mejias sent to him
on July 24. Bailey then stated that the proposal was being translated as it had
to be sent to Respondent's "labor relations officials" in Newark 38 and it would be
difficult for them to understand the Spanish version. - Bailey concluded with the
statement that as soon as a study of the contract was finished, they would gladly
notify Mejias so that a meeting could be held "in which we will come to an agree-
ment satisfactory to both parties."
In a union meeting on August 1 or 2, 1962, the ILO members authorized Presi-
dent Ramon Mejias to petition Local 901, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs and Warehousemen, Independent (herein called Teamsters Local 901),
to accept the members of ILO into that local and to bargain on its behalf if such
action did not jeopardize the certification the Board had issued to ILO.39 Mejias
8 About this time it was 9 p.m. Sergeant Ortiz. who testified regarding this incident,
was then instructed to return to the pier He stayed at the pier until 2 a.m. on August 1,
when he went homp He returned to the pier at 6 a.m on August 1.
37 Respondent Introduced evidence through Sergeant Ortiz of the burning of a trailer van
by ILO members during this period. I granted Charging Party's motion to strike the
testimony as it was hearsay. Montero testified that be received a telephone call around
7:30 p.m. about August 10, 1962, and another around the same time about August 20, in
which the callers threatened his life He also testified that around 5:30 p.m. about
August 13, while he was taking a bath, an unidentified caller telephoned and asked for
him. When his wife answered the call, at his request, the caller said, "Tell Montero that
we're going to blow up the Playa Bridge when he is going over it." Montero's wife-told
him immediately what the caller said . While I received the testimony of the telephone
calls in evidence, I do not give it any weight. The evidence does not show that the threats
were threats of ILO members either acting in concert or as individuals. See B.V.D.
Company, 110 NLRB 1412, and 117 NLRB 1455; International Ladies Ga,ment Worker8
Union (B.V.D. Company, Inc.) v. N.L.RB., 237 F. 2d 545, 550-552 (CA.D.C.); and
Trumbull Asphalt Company of Delaware, 139 NLRB 1221.
8 James John Hayes Is Respondent 's director of labor relations , with offices at Respond-
ent's headquarters in Newark, New Jersey. He testified under subpena for the General
Counsel.
89 Ramon and David Mejias and Hector Merced Medina gave testimony that a letter
signed by Ramon Mejias was sent on August 1 to Montero in which he made an un-
conditional offer to return to work on behalf of the ILO members. A photostatic copy of
a carbon copy of the letter was received in evidence when no objection was raised as to
authenticity. Subsequently, the carbon copy from which the photostatic copy was made
was received in evidence. A notice to produce the original was served on Respondent,
but Respondent's officials denied ever receiving it. Ramon Mejias testified he dictated
the letter to his son David, on August 1, read it to the ILO members when they were
assembled, signed it, and placed it in an envelope 'addressed to Montero at his Ponce
terminal address. He also testified that he gave the letter to Merced, who was at the
meeting, to mail at the Ponce post office. David Mejias corroborated his father's testi-
mony that he dictated the letter to him. He testified that he typed the letter and he saw
his father place itl in an envelope addressed to Montero. He also testified that he drove
Merced to the post office, saw the envelope in Merced's hands, that it was addressed to
744-670-65-vol. 146-61
944 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
went to San Juan on August 2 and made the petition to Frank Chavez , organizer
and secretary-treasurer of Teamsters Local 901. On August 2, 1962, Chavez
wired Mejias that the , board of directors of Teamsters Local 901 decided at a meet-
ing held on that date to accept the members of ILO as members of Teamsters Local
901. About that time , Chavez sent to Bailey a copy of his telegram to Mejias and
informed him that he would negotiate the collective-bargaining contract on behalf of
the ILO members. Bailey advised Chavez that if the ILO wished the Teamsters
Local 901 to bargain for it, there would have to be an amendment to the Board
certification issued to ILO.
In the early morning of August 16 , 1962 , Teamsters Local 901 established a
picket line at Respondent 's Ponce terminal . Some of the picket sign legends were:
"Teamsters 901 demand recognition of union certification"; "Do not cross the
picket line"; "Teamsters demand Sea-Land reinstate workers of certified union";
and "Sea-Land Service discriminates against its employees in violation of the law."
Several of the signs had legends referring to the ILO. They apparently were the
signs used by ILO in its picketing on July 19 and 20, July 30, and thereafter.
The picketing with legends identifying Teamsters Local 901 was discontinued the
same morning.
On August 18, Chavez met with Hayes, Bailey, Prado, and others of Sea-Land
as well as with Captain Bradley in Hayes' room at the Caribe-Hilton Hotel, San
Juan. Bradley and Chavez had a conversation after the representatives of Re-
spondent Sea-Land had left Hayes' room. Hayes testified that the discussion was
concerned with the means by which the ILO members could be put back to work.
Hayes stated that Captain Bradley and Chavez told him that they believed they
could work out some agreement that would make everybody happy in Ponce. He
admitted that part of the agreement was the merger of ILO with UTM Local 903.
He further testified that either he or Captain Bradley persuaded Chavez to remove
the pickets. The latter had' placed pickets at Respondent's San Juan terminal, as
well as its terminal in Ponce, on August 16.
At an August 30 meeting, Ramon Mejias asked Bailey to put the ILO members
to work while the contract proposal Bailey asked ILO to furnish was being prepared.
Bailey replied that he knew there was a deal between him and Perez Roa. The
latter is president of the I.L.A. District Council as well as president of I.L.A. Local
1575. Mejias replied that Roa had nothing to do with I.L.A. Shortly before
August 30, Perez Roa had sent Mejias a telegram in which he stated that he wished
to talk to him. Mejias, by telephone, asked him to meet with him in Attorney
Weasler's office in San Juan. Mejias went there accompanied by his son, David.
By a change in arrangements made by Roa, they met in Marios' Restaurant in
Isla Verde, San Juan. Roa was accompanied by President Placido of the Insular
Foremen's Association and President Berrios of UDEM, the checkers' union.
Montero, and had a stamp on it , and saw Merced go into the post office to mail it. Merced
testified that David Mejias drove him to the Ponce post office, and that he mailed the letter
there that he had received from Ramon Mejias.
Respondent's Ponce Terminal Manager Montero denied that he ever received the letter.
While there is evidence that attacks the presumption that the letter was sent, I shall not
pass on such a question. The denial by Montero that he ever received the letter raises a
question of credibility as to the receipt of the letter by Montero even though there had
been a presumption of its receipt and notice thereof established by the testimony of Ramon
and David Mejias and Merced Schultz v. Jordan, 141 U S. 213, 220; Rosenthal v Walker,
111 U.S 185, 193; Block v. Eastern Machine Screw Corporat ion, 281 Fed. 777, 779
(C.A 6) ; General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. American Insurance Co , 50 F. 2d 803, 805
(C.A. 5), cert. denied 284 U.S. 676; Active Mobile Homes Corporation, 138 NLRB 808.
I find from consideration of Montero's demeanor testimony, his other testimony, and the
evidence of independent events and circumstances that occurred on July 31 , August 1,
and thereafter, as found herein, that neither Montero nor any responsible official of Re-
spondent received or had notice of the contents of the August 1 letter. It is to be noted
that Elisi Nunez, vice president of ILO, and Mariano Santiago Ruiz, treasurer of ILO,
and a member of its negotiating committee, testified that they had never seen nor heard
of the letter until it was shown to them on February 2, 1963, at the hearing, when they
testified. They could not recall attending a union meeting on August 1, 1962. They
testified they may have been working for other companies . Nunez was working on
July 30, 1962, for Respondent and obeyed the call of Ramon Mejias to cease work. He
participated in the union activity on July 30 and 31. Santiago attended the union meet-
ings on July 30 and 31.
SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC.; ETC. 945
Roa said he thought the ILO members- were having a -bad time in Ponce, being
out of work, and that he was going-to intervene to see if he could settle the matter-:
He said -he had the authority to do so from Captain Bradley. He said that in ex-
change for the ILO members going back to the I.L.A. he would get them their
work back, but that he (Ramon Mejias) could not take any part because neither
the Company nor -the I.L.A: wanted him. Mejias asked him if they would appoint
him as the union delegate of the ILO members, and Roa replied • he would talk
to the committee. That was the end of the meeting.
On October 4, 1962, Mejias sent a letter to Bailey in which he stated that "in the
event there is any doubt in your mind we wish to reaffirm our position that all of
our members are ready and willing to return to their former jobs without imposing
any conditions of any kind." Bailey replied in a letter dated October 9 in which
he stated that, "It is most unfortunate that a similar offer could not have been
made prior to the employment of other labor after your men quit their jobs." He
then continued with the concluding paragraph that, "Unfortunately I- am not in a
position, at the present time, to remove these men who came to our rescue. This
is a matter that can only and will only be settled jointly by yourself and Sea-Land
at the negotiation table."
In a letter dated October 8, 1962, to Bailey, ILO Attorney Weasler stated that on
behalf of ILO he was authorized to advise him that the ILO membership was
"ready, willing, and able to come to San Juan or any other place designated by you,
handle the loading and unloading of Ponce cargo in the same manner as was
previously done." He also stated that he was authorized to invite him to sit down
and discuss "this grievance" at a time and place convenient to him. In a letter dated
October 11, Bailey acknowledged receipt of the letter of October 8. He character-
ized its contents to be a statement that the ILO members had "now changed their
minds" and "were willing to come to San Juan to unload cargo from our C-4 vessels
that are destined to Ponce." Bailey's letter next contained the following paragraphs:
Inasmuch as we were placed in a rather precarious position when .they elected
not to come to San Juan, we then'had to make other plans. Cargo destined to
Ponce has been turned over to Waterman of Puerto Rico and is moving to the
port of Ponce on the C-4 vessels, SS New Orleans, SS Mobile. This eliminates
the necessity of our having to off-load this cargo in San Juan and transport it
over the highway to Ponce and our responsibility for the handling of this
Ponce cargo.
I trust this will suffice to answer any question for you with the ILO 40
D. Bargaining between ILO and Respondent
On August 24, 1962, Bailey telegraphed Mejias in reply to the latter's request that
they meet to negotiate a contract on August 24. Bailey informed him that Respond-
ent was willing to negotiate with ILO pursuant to the Board certification, but in view
of Chavez' notice to him of August 2, he was of the opinion that there should be
some advice from the Board as to what Respondent should do. On August 28,
Teamsters Local 901, by Chavez, informed Mejias that the board of directors at a
meeting on August 25 revoked its resolution of August 2 accepting ILO members as
members of Teamsters. On the same date, Teamsters Local 901, by Chavez,
informed the Board's Regional Office and Bailey that it was not interested in bar-
gaining with Respondent in behalf of ILO.
On August 29, Mejias wired to Bailey a request that they meet and bargain on
August 30 in view of the action taken by Teamsters Local 901 on August 25 and
August 28. Bailey and Mejias met in San Juan on August 30. David Mejias was
also present. Bailey told Mejias that he would have to furnish a proposal contain-
ing provisions dealing with the handling of trailer van cargo, conventional cargo,
and warehouse work. He also said the contract would have to be in English. When
Mejias said it would be difficult for him to have such a proposal prepared, Bailey
said he would prepare it and send it to Mejiasin 7 to 10 days.
"In a memorandum dated October 9, 1962, captioned "Sworn Statement," which Bailey
submitted to the Regional Office in connection with this proceeding, he stated that the
C-4 vessels, the SS New Orleans and SS Mobile, are operated only as a temporary measure
He also stated that they are owned by Waterman, are operated as Waterman's vessels
with Waterman's paid crew, and that Waterman arranges and pays for the stevedoring
Bailey also stated that Respondent had no record of cargo that arrived in Puerto Rico on
C-2's which was transferred to the C-4's for the trip to Ponce. This happened only when
the vessels were in San Juan at an opportune time to expedite the movement of this
cargo It did not affect terminal operations in Ponce, but replaced the use of truckers in
moving the cargo from San Juan to Ponce.
946 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On September 7, 1962, Bailey addressed a letter to Mejias in which he stated that
a contract proposal incorporating provisions applying to warehouse operations,
trailer ship operations, and conventional ship operations would have to be supplied
by ILO, so that Respondent and ILO could proceed with negotiations "to effect a
workable contract ." The letter concluded with the observation that "I am sure that
there will be no delay , in your supplying this Proposal so that we may again resume
our discussions."
On September 8, 1962 , Mejias, as president of ILO, sent a letter to Bailey as
manager of Respondent Sea-Land . Mejias referred to the agreement of August 30
that Respondent would furnish a revised proposal incorporating Respondent 's require-
ments. Mejias included in the letter amendments to the proposal ILO submitted to
Respondent on July 24 which ILO wished to have included in the revised proposal
being prepared by Respondent . Mejias asked for a meeting between Respondent
and ILO on September 10 to discuss all proposals of Respondent and ILO. On
September 11, Mejias wired Bailey. He stated therein that negotiations had to be
resumed . On the same date, Bailey sent an answering telegram to Mejias in
which he stated that Respondent had not received an amended "contract ," and that
it "will be delighted to resume negotiation when this is received to avoid any further
delay."
Mejias sent an amended contract proposal in English to Bailey on Monday,
September 17. Bailey in a letter dated September 19 acknowledged receipt of it on
that date . The revision contained provisions applying to warehouse work and trailer
ship and conventional cargo operations. Bailey stated in the letter of acknowledg-
ment that he would immediately begin to study ILO 's proposal , and would notify
him when the study was completed so that he and Mejias could begin negotiations as
soon as possible . He concluded the letter with the words , "I trust that I will find the
Proposal as requested and that our negotiations will be speedy and successful."
On or about September 20, Mejias received a telegram from Vargas , an official
of the Insular Department of Labor, inviting him to attend a meeting with Bailey at
the department in San Juan on September 21. On Thursday, September 20, Mejias
sent Bailey a telegram in which he stated he was reminding him of his agreement
with the Department of Labor to meet with him at the department in San Juan on
Friday, September 21, at 10 a.m., to negotiate a contract. Mejias was present at the
Department of Labor on Friday at 8:30 a.m. Bailey did not appear. He sent a
telegram to Vargas in which he stated he could not be present.
On October 17, 1962, Mejias met with Bailey and Prado of Respondent at the
conference room in its new building in San Juan . Bailey left after a few minutes.
Mejias and Prado discussed the provisions in the contract proposal submitted by
Mejias to Respondent on September 17. They reached agreement on some of them,
but Prado stated to Mejias that he did not have authority to make his agreement
final on behalf of Respondent.
On December 3, 1962, Prado sent a telegram to Albert M. Horn, Esq., attorney
for the General Counsel in this proceeding , informing him that Respondent was ready
to negotiate with ILO. The Board's Regional Attorney, Vincent Rotolo, acknowl-
edged the telegram on December 7 and sent a copy of his acknowledgment to Mejias.
Prado sent a letter addressed to ILO on December 14, 1962, in which he stated that
Respondent confirmed its telegram to Horn dated December 3, 1962 . Mejias sent a
telegram to Prado on December 17 acknowledging receipt of his letter.
Mejias and Bailey met on December 27, 1962 , and discussed the contract proposal.
Bailey affirmed Prado's agreements with respect to certain provisions on October 17
and reached agreement with Mejias on other provisions of the proposal . Bailey
placed the date of October 17, 1962 ,-in the margin on the left side of each provision
Prado and Mejias agreed on on that date. He also placed the date of December 27,
1962 , in the margin on the left side of each provision he and Mejias agreed on on
that date . Another meeting was held on January 3 , 1963 , between Bailey and
Mejias, and agreement reached on certain provisions including a rider to the contract
proposal. The date was inserted by Bailey in the margin on the left side of these
provisions.
On January 9, 1963 , Mejias sent Bailey a telegram reminding him of their agree-
ment to meet on January 10 to discuss further the contract proposal . However,
Mejias wired Bailey on January 10 that he could not meet with him as he had to
attend a meeting at the Regional Office of the Board. The record contains no fur-
ther evidence of the negotiations between Respondent and the Charging Party. As
previously stated, the hearing in this proceeding began on January 17, 1963.
E. Analysis and concluding findings
I find and conclude that the evidence shows that Respondent Sea-Land by conduct
before and after the Board-conducted election of July 2, 1962 , in the unit of Re-
SEA-LAND SERVICE , INC., ETC. 947
spondent's stevedores and related employees at the port of Ponce, Puerto Rico, has
violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. The warning of a supervisor of Respondent on
June 22, 1962 , that Respondent 's Ponce stevedoring employees would lose their
jobs if they voted for ILO to be their collective-bargaining representative in the
July 2 election , and Respondent 's indifference and stalling with respect to the re-
quests of the ILO to meet with it to discuss grievances and bargain after the Ponce
employees had selected it as collective-bargaining representative and the Board had so
certified it, obviously has interfered with, coerced, and restrained the stevedores and
related employees employed by Respondent at its Ponce terminal with respect to their
rights to voluntarily embrace membership in ILO and select it as their collective-
bargaining representative.
I find and conclude that the evidence shows that Respondent Sea-Land by its
conduct before the Board election and thereafter has contributed support to the
I.L.A., I.L.A. District Council, and UTM Local 1903 within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 (a)(2) and (1) of the Act, and has violated that section of the Act. The
competitive situation existing between the ILO and I.L.A. unions prior to the Board
election of July 2 and thereafter has been known to Respondent. Respondent's
stevedores and related employees at its terminals at San Juan, Puerto Rico, and at
ports in the continental United States, with the exception of the west coast, are
represented by I.L.A. unions. Respondent's conduct by its very nature has con-
tributed support to the I.L.A. unions in their efforts to bring about the absorption
by UTM Local 1903 of the ILO members it employs in Ponce, and to supplant ILO
as the bargaining representative of these employees. The warranted inference from
the evidence is that an object of Respondent's conduct has been and is support
to the I.L.A. unions in their contest with ILO.
There is absent from the record evidence that a compelling economic reason
rather than a discriminatory one caused Respondent to make the operational changes
it made on or about June 29 and July 5, 1962, and to assign in August or early
September 1962, the handling of the trailer van cargo as well as the conventional
cargo of the C-4's at Ponce to Waterman with its UTM Local 1903 member em-
ployees rather than handle it directly with its employee members of ILO. Water-
man and its UTM Local 1903 member employees have handled at Ponce the trailer
van cargo of the C-4's, a complex and difficult assignment, since the service began
in August or early September 1962, although it was a new experience for them.
Respondent's contention that it could not handle directly with its employe members
of ILO the lesser tonnage of conventional cargo the C-4's carry, an assignment
basic to any cargo handling, and the type of work handled by the ILO members
before they began handling the trailer vans in 1958, is a specious argument. It is
• to be noted that Respondent has asked ILO since the latter's selection as bargain-
ing representative to include in its contract proposals a provision covering the work
of handling conventional cargo. ILO is certified to represent all of Respondent's
employees loading and unloading its cargo at Ponce.
Respondent 's sporadic operation prior to July 1962 ; under a lease arrangement,
of three ships carrying conventional cargo from the west coast to Puerto Rico and
its assigning the handling of the cargo to Waterman , does not furnish the explanation
for the assignment to Waterman and its employee members of I.L.A. UTM Local
1903 both the handling at Ponce of the trailer van cargo and the lesser tonnage of
conventional cargo of the C-4's coming from Newark. Respondent would. have
us believe that there is nothing suspicious or specious in its argument that the han-
dling of conventional cargo on a west coast run prior to July 1962 is a precedent
for the handling of the trailer van cargo and incidental conventional cargo of the
C-4's sailing from Newark. Nor does UTM Local 1740's handling of the C-4
cargo in San Juan furnish a better explanation . I.L.A. Local 1575 has continuously
protested this assignment by Respondent . Moreover , this latter local is affiliated
with I.L.A. and can be expected to follow its policies and those of the I.L.A.
District Council. Moreover, its members have the work of handling the cargo
of Respondent's jumbo ships (each with 466 vans capacity) as well as the cargo of
the C-2's that still come to San Juan. Respondent's employees at Ponce, on the
other hand, can only expect to handle the cargo of the C-4's, the substituted service
for the C-2's and the cargo of the C-2's that Respondent may bring to Ponce.
This is the work they have been discriminatorily denied.
I find and conclude that the evidence shows that Respondent Sea-Land by its
conduct before and after the Board election has discriminatorily denied employ-
ment in violation of Section , 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act to its approximately 100
stevedores and related employees at Ponce who are listed in Appendix A to dis-
courage membership in ILO and rejection of it as collective-bargaining representa-
tive, and to encourage membership in UTM Local 1903 of I.L.A. and the selec-
tion of I.L.A., I.L.A. District Council, and UTM Local 1903 as collective-bargaining
948 DECISIONS ,OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
representative. This illegal conduct includes the discontinuance from on or_ about
July 5, 1962, of sending gangs of Ponce employees to San Juan, Puerto Rico, to
handle cargo of its C-2 ships scheduled to dock at Ponce but rescheduled to return
to Newark, New Jersey, directly from San Juan; its discontinuance of bringing its
C-2 ships to Ponce from on or about June 29, 1962, until a date in August or early
September 1962, when it substituted its C-4 ship service to Ponce for the C-2 serv-
ice to Ponce; its failure from on or about July 5, 1962, to employ full gangs of
employee members of ILO for warehouse work; and its failure to assign to its
employees who are members of ILO the work of handling the cargo of the C-4 ships
at the port of Ponce from the time these ships first docked at Ponce in August or
early September 1962, and thereafter, and the employment of members of UTM
Local 1903 of I.L.A. to do this work through the fiction of engaging Waterman,- its
sister subsidiary of McLean Industries, to handle it. Waterman's stevedores are
members of UTM Local 1903.
The illegal conduct in violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) includes the discharge
on July 26, 1962, of Ramon Mejias, president of ILO, from his job as hatch tender
checking vans hauled overland by independent truckers, by Montero, upon instruc-
tions from Manager Bailey. The discharge occurred 5 days following Bailey's
failure to meet and bargain with him as he had promised to do the previous day.
Also included is Respondent's refusal to reinstate the warehouse workers who en-
gaged in a strike on July 30, 1962, and thereafter, which I find was an unfair labor
practice strike, after they made an unconditional offer to return to work on October
4, 1962. ILO member employees of Respondent did not strike against the jobs
of loading and unloading C-2 cargo at Ponce and San Juan, or C-4 cargo at Ponce,
and, therefore, have not been required to offer to return to these jobs. Respond-
ent had, discriminatorily deprived them of this work since the beginning of July
1962, a- month before the strike. An object of the July 30 strike by the warehouse
workers and the protest by picketing of the remainder of the ILO member em-
ployees of Respondent was to persuade Respondent to return its employee members
of ILO to the loading and unloading work at San Juan and Ponce. The strike and
protest of July 30 and thereafter, as stated supra, was directed against many griev-
ances including Respondent's failure to meet and negotiate with ILO, the Board
certified collective-bargaining representative.
I find and conclude that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act by its failure to negotiate with ILO: (1) The discontinuance of both the send-
ing of gangs of its Ponce stevedoring and related employees to San Juan on and
after July 5, 1962, and the bringing of its C-2 cargo ships to Ponce on and after
June 29, 1962; (2) employing less than' full gangs in warehouse work at Ponce since
on or about July 5, 1962; and (3) the assignment of the work of handling the C-4
cargo at the port of Ponce since August or early September, 1962. The ILO is
clearly certified as the representative of all of Respondent's employees loading and
unloading the cargo of its ships in the port of Ponce. These changes in Respond-
ent's operations affected employees' wages, hours, and working conditions, and
should have been discussed with the collective-bargaining representative. See
N.L.R.B. v. Benne Katz, etc., d/bla Williamsburg Steel Products Co., 369 U.S.
736; Franke's, Inc., 142 NLRB 551. '
I do not find that Respondent generally refused to bargain in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) of the Act, as there is no allegation of a general refusal to bargain
in the complaint, and the General Counsel expressly takes the position that such
a violation is not within the scope of his theory of the case. Brewery and
Beverage Drivers and Workers, Local No. 67 (Washington Coca-Cola Bottling
Works, Inc.) 107 NLRB 299, enfd. 220 F. 2d 380 (C.A.D.C.). This issue was
fully litigated by Charging Party, Respondent, and unintentionally by General
Counsel. His evidence on this issue was inextricably enmeshed with evidence in-
volving other issues. The evidence of record shows that Respondent engaged in
surface bargaining- only with respect to wages, hours, and working conditions,
until December 27, 1962. See Section 8(d) of the Act. There is merit to Re-
spondent's position that it had doubts as to the identity of the bargaining agent dur-
ing the interim period of August 2 to 30, 1962, as it was not clear during that time
whether the identity of ILO, the certified union, had been lost by what turned out
to be a temporary merger with Teamsters Local 901. See Dickey, formerly d/bla
Ohio Hoist and Mfg. Co., v. N.L.R.B., 217.F. 2d 652 (C.A. 6). However, the
course of its conduct was not steered in the direction of good-faith bargaining until
December 27. The record as a whole discloses that the remedy should include a
cautionary order to bargain generally, under the broad provisions of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. See D. H. Holmes Company Ltd., 81 NLRB 753, enfd. as
modified 179 F. 2d 876 , 879-880 (C.A. 5).
'SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC., ETC. 949
I find and conclude that the violence that occurred on July 31 and August 1, 1962,
in connection with Respondent 's efforts to move' two refrigerated trailers from its
Ponce terminal to Tropical , City Industries , a refrigeration company about three-
tenths of a mile from the terminal , is not conduct that is attributable to the ILO union
or to its members generally. The evidence shows only the identity of two persons who
participated-in the violence . There is no evidence of agency , authorization , or ratifi-
cation , which would make ILO and its members 'generally liable for such conduct?i
See International, Ladies Garment Workers Union (B.V.D. -Company , Inc.) v
NLRB, 237 F . 2d 545 ( C.A.D C. ); Local 833 , International Union, United
Automobile, etc. (Kohler Co.) v. N.L.R.B., 300 F. 2d 699 (C.A.D.C.), cert denied
370 U.S. 911; N.L.R.B. v. Thayer Company, et al., 213 F. 2d 748 (CA. 1) cert.
denied 348 U.S. 883.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in con-
nection with its operations described in section I, above, have a close , intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(1), (2 ), ( 3), and (5) of the Act, I shall recommend that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
It has been found that Respondent discriminatorily refused reinstatement to the
unfair labor practice strikers who struck their warehouse jobs on July 30, 1962, upon
their making an unconditional offer to return to work on October 4, 1962. The
identities of these warehouse workers will be ascertained in the compliance proceed-
ings. Their names are included in Appendix A. I shall recommend that Respondent
offer them immediate and full reinstatement to the same or substantially equivalent
employment, in conformity with the procedure Respondent had in effect on July 30,
1962, for assigning warehouse work to employees . I shall further recommend that
Respondent make each of these employees whole for any loss of pay they may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against them from October 10, 1962, until
the date of Respondent's offer of full reinstatement or earlier grant thereof, in a
manner consistent with Board policy as set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289, with interest as provided in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716
I shall recommend that the employees listed in Appendix A, discriminatorily denied
jobs calling for the handling of cargo at San Juan, and at Ponce, Puerto Rico, either
at shipside or in the warehouse , shall be reinstated to the same or substantially equiv-
alent employment , except as provided below, in confromity with the procedure Re-
spondent had in effect , on July 5, 1962, or immediately prior thereto , for assigning
work to the same type of employees . The jobs available for these' employees appear
to be the warehouse jobs and related work at Ponce, and the jobs calling for the
handling at shipside at Ponce the cargo of the C-4's, as well as the cargo of C-2's
that may dock at the port of Ponce I shall further recommend that these em-
ployees be made whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination
against them , computed in accordance with the Board 's policy in F. W Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest as provided in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.,
138 NLRB 716.
I have found that David Mejias prior to July . 30, 1962, was not a supervisor
within the meaning of the Act, but a gang leader or leadman with the status
of a confidential employee . He, and the checkers and stevedores under his leader-
ship , handled valuable cargo in Respondent's warehouse , some of which was badly
damaged during the strike on July 19 and 20, 1962 (supra) His demotion from the
leadman job of chief clerk to clerk on July 30 and 31, 1962, which was not
discriminatory , did not entail loss of hours of work or reduction in earnings. So
his reinstatement as an unfair labor practice striker shall restore him to the work
status he had as a result of letters to him of July 30 and 31, 1962, or to substantially
equivalent employment . He shall be made whole , as stated above, for loss of the
earnings that this job provided. Ramon Mejias shall be offered reinstatement to the
job of hatch tender from which he was discriminatorily discharged on July 26, 1962
411 shall recommend that the two persons identified as having engaged in illegal con-
duct by Sergeant Ortiz of the police be denied reinstatement , and backpay from the date
of the illegal conduct , if they are employees of Respondent.
950 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(supra ), or substantially equivalent employment , and made whole , as stated above,
for the loss of earnings this job provided. This remedy is in addition to any to
which he may be entitled if he is one of the employees discriminated against by
Respondent 's conduct beginning on June 29 or July 5, 1962.
I shall not recommend the reinstatement of Virgilio Echevarria who engaged in
violence on July 31 , 1962, in connection with the movement by Respondent of a
refrigerated van from its Ponce terminal to Tropical City Industries on Hostos
Avenue, Ponce (supra). Moreover the cutoff date for his backpay, if any, shall be
July 31, 1962. William Carrasquillo de Jesus, the person who engaged in violence
on August 1, 1962 (supra), is not an employee of Respondent. So he is excluded
from Appendix A on that account. If he had been an employee he would have
disqualified himself from the remedy by his conduct on August 1.
I find from the testimony of Elisi Nunez given on February 2, 1963, in the hearing
at San Juan, Puerto Rico, that employee Celestine Perez threatened him with physical
harm between 7 and 8 p.m., January 31, 1963, at Ponce, if he testified at the hearing.
Nunez testified as a witness for the Respondent . Perez was driving his automobile
at the time and date stated with Tomas Vasquez and his wife as passengers on
Mirasol Street when he saw Nunez and Mariano Santiago Ruiz walking on the side-
walk. He stopped and parked the automobile, and he and Vasquez alighted from it
and walked to Nunez and Santiago Ruiz. Perez engaged Nunez in a conversation.
He testified Perez asked him "if I was going to testify against them here and he told
me not to do it because there would be problems." Nunez further testified they spoke
heatedly to each other, and that he reported the matter to the police. I recommend
that Perez be denied reinstatement and that the cutoff date for backpay be January 31,
1963. He attempted to interfere with Respondent's right to a fair hearing and with,
the Board's processes. It would not effectuate the purposes of the Act to afford him
the remedy I recommend for the other employees. Trumbull-Asphalt Company of
Delaware, 139 NLRB 1221.
As stated supra, I shall recommend an order that requires Respondent to bargain
generally, as well as in regard to changes Respondent makes or has made in its
operations.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record, I make the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, and
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. ILO is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent interfered with, coerced, and restrained employees in violation of
Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
4. Respondent contributed support to I.L.A., I.L.A. District Council, and UTM
Local 1903 in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.
5. Respondent violated Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act by discriminating
against employees with respect to their hire and tenure of employment, and by
refusing to reinstate unfair labor practice strikers after they made an unconditional
offer to return to work, to discourage membership in and representation by ILO,
and encourage membership in UTM Local 1903 and representation by I.L.A.,
I.L.A. District Council, and UTM Local 1903.
6. Respondent, in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, refused to
negotiate with ILO, the Board certified collective-bargaining representative of its
stevedore and related employees at Ponce, Puerto Rico, the discontinuance of cer-
tain operations on June 29, 1962, July 5, 1962, or thereabouts, and thereafter, at
Ponce and San Juan, Puerto Rico, and the placing in effect in August or early Sep-
tember 1962, of a new cargo ship service to Ponce, all of which affected the wages,
hours, working conditions, and other conditions of employment, of the employees
represented by ILO.
7. The foregoing unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I recommend that
the Respondent, Sea-Land Service, Inc., and Sea-Land of Puerto Rico, a Division
Sea-Land Service, Inc., their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interfering with, coercing, and restraining employees in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act with respect to their right to voluntarily become members of
SEA-LAND SERVICE„.INC:,,•ETC. , , . 951,
ILO, select ILO as collective-bargaining representative, and engage in other acts
of mutual aid and protection. -
(b) Contributing support to I.L.A., I.L.A. `District; Council, and UTM Local.
1903, affiliated with I.L.A.,-in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.
(c) Discouraging membership in ILO and encouraging membership in UTM.
Local 1903, affiliated, with' I.L.A. and I.L.A. District. Council, by discriminating
against employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or* any, term
or condition of. employment, through discriminatory discharges, " discontinuing
operations in which they were assigned work, assigning work they should receive
to members of UTM Local 1903 through the artifice or fiction of engaging a sister
subsidiary of the same parent company to handle the work as a subcontractor with,
its employee members of UTM Local 1903, and by a discriminatory refusal to
reinstate unfair labor practice strikers upon their unconditional offer to return ^ to,
work.
(d) Refusing to bargain in good faith with ILO, as the certified exclusive repre=
sentative of its stevedore and related employees at Ponce, Puerto Rico, in regard to
the discontinuance of operations or the placing in effect of new operations that
affect the wages, hours, and working conditions of these employees.
2. Take the following affirmative, action which I find will effectuate the purposes
of the Act:
(a) Offer Ramon Mejias, the other employees listed in Appendix A, and the
warehouse employees, including David Mejias, who engaged in the unfair labor
practice strike beginning on July 30, 1962, immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent employment, without prejudice to their
seniority and other rights and privileges, and make each of them whole for any loss
of earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination -against them, in the manner
set forth in section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Bargain collectively in good faith with. ILO as the certified exclusive repre-
sentative of employees, at Ponce in the appropriate unit in regard to wages, hours,
working conditions, and other bargainable matters;; including the discontinuance
or inauguration of any of its operations or services at Ponce, Puerto Rico, affecting
wages, hours, working conditions or other conditions of employment.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security : payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other data necessary for the com-
putation of the backpay and interest'thereon'due under the terms of this Recom-
mended Order.
(d) Post at the terminal of Respondent Sea-Land at Ponce, Puerto Rico, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix B." Copies of said notice, to be fur-
nished by the Regional Director of the Twenty-fourth Region of the National Labor
Relations Board, shall, after being signed by a duly authorized representative of
Respondent Sea-Land be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. 'Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent Sea-Land to insure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by other material.42
(e) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt
of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what steps the Respondent
has. taken to comply therewith.43
It is further recommended that unless on or before 20 days from the date of the
receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order," the Respondent Sea-
Land notify the said Regional Director, in writing, that it will comply with the fore-
going Recommended Order, the. National Labor Relations Board issue an order
requiring the Respondent-to take the action aforesaid.
*a In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "A
Decision and 'Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by
a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "A Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted 'for, the words "A Decision
and Order."
43 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director' for the Twenty-fourth Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps the Respondent has taken
to comply herewith." " .
952 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A
Alfredo Marrero Ismael Bonet Jaime Ortiz
Carlos Cabrera Carlos Torres Borrero Pedro Ortiz
Jose Gordian Manuel Alindato Jose A. Torres
Hector Merced Juan Felipe Perez Basilio Pirela
Efrain Torres Manuel Bracero Epifanio Carrasquillo
William Vargas Jose Santiago Santos Benjamin Caraballo
Celestino Perez Tomas Vazquez Pastor Villarini
Francisco Rivera Heriberto Banchs Carmelo Gonzalez
Guillermo Orsini Octavio Pagan Leonides Batista
Celso de Jesus Antonio Torres Elias Oliveras
Luis Pacheco Jorge Pacheco Vincente Gordian
Pio A. del Toro Ramon Mejias Juan Gallego, Jr.
Demy Santos Arcadio Mercado Andres Rodriguez
Juan Alindato Ricardo Guilbe Rafael Rodriguez
Julio Morales Hernan Cortez Francisco Vazquez
Victor Torres Radames Natal Guillermo Cedeno
Jose L. Olavarria Jorge Lucas Secola Luis Mendez Santos
Guillermo Santiago Mariano Santiago Ruiz Luis David Mejias
Camelo Morales Victor J. Caraballo Juan Rodriguez Sotero
Efrain Jimenez Virgilio Echevarria Ramon Mejias Negron
Ramon Vargas Sotero Felix Echevarria Hector Santiago
Juan Tantao Juan Torres Elisi Nunez
Hector Rodriguez Felix Robles Joaquin Almestica
Obdulio Torres Guadalupe Mendez Juan Oliveras
Juan Gallego Eloy Zayas Antonio Ruiz
Juan Rentas Chamorro Jose Garcia F. Teissonniers
Ernesto Rodriguez Tomas Echevarria Hilario Rodriguez
Jose Gonzales Natal Julio Perez Quinones Martin Rodriguez
Francisco Cedeno Juan Mendez, Jr. Juan Perez
Juan Almestica Juan Robles Luis A. Figueroa
Pastor Torres Felix Mendez
Bienvenido Santiago Bartolo Garcia
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES -
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT interfere with, coerce, or restrain employees with respect to
their rights to voluntarily become members of Insular Labor Organization
(ILO) of Ponce, Independent, or to select it as their collective-bargaining rep-
resentative, or to engage in other acts of mutual aid and protection.
WE WILL NOT contribute support to International Longshoremen's As-
sociation; District Council of Ports of Puerto Rico of International Long-
shoremen's Association, and to UTM Local 1903, their affiliated local, to
discourage membership in ILO, or encourage membership in UTM Local 1903,
or to cause the supplanting of ILO as collective-bargaining representative by
these I.L.A. unions.
WE WILL NOT discriminate against members of ILO in regard to their hire
and tenure of employment, or by refusing to reinstate them 'after they have
engaged in an unfair labor strike, upon their unconditional offer to return to
work, to discourage membership in ILO, or to encourage membership in -UTM
Local 1903, affiliated with I.L.A. -
WE WILL meet and bargain collectively with representatives of ILO, the
certified collective-bargaining representative of our employees who load and un-
load cargo of our vessels at Ponce, Puerto Rico, with respect to wages,- hours,
other conditions of -work, and other bargainable matters, including the dis-
continuance or placing in effect of services to the port of Ponce, Puerto Rico,
that affect wages, hours of work,- or other conditions of employment of the
emplyees that ILO represents.
WE WILL offer ; the employees listed in the attached Appendix including the
unfair labor practice strikers who made an unconditional offer to return to
work on October 4, 1962, full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and
privileges.
SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC., ETC. 953
WE WILL make the employees listed in the attached -Appendix and employees
Vergilia Echevarria and Celestino Perez whole for any loss of pay suffered
'by each as a result of the discrimination against him with interest thereon at
the rate of 6 percent per annum.
SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC. AND
SEA-LAND OF PUERTO RICO,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative ) (Title)
NoTE.-We will notify any of the above-named employees presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right, to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the Armed
Forces.
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, 1506
Ponce De Leon, P.O. Box 11007, Fernandez Juncos Station, Santurce, Puerto Rico,
Telephone No. 723-3200, if they have any question concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions.
APPENDIX B-Continued
Alfredo Marrero Ismael Bonet Jaime Ortiz
Carlos Cabrera Carlos Tones Borrero Pedro Ortiz
Jose Gordian Manuel Alindato Jose A. Torres
Hector Merced Juan Felipe Perez Basilio Pirela
Efrain Torres Manuel Bracer Epifanio Carrasquillo
William Vargas Jose Santiago Santos Benjamin Caraballo
Francisco Rivera Tomas Vazquez Pastor Villarini
Guillermo Orsini Heriberto Banchs Carmelo Gonzalez
Celso de Jesus Octavio Pagan Leonides Batista
Luis Pacheco Antonio Tones Elias Oliveras
Pio A. del Toro` Jorge Pacheco Vincente Gordian
Demy Santos Ramon Mejias Juan Gallego, Jr.
Juan Alindato Arcadio Mercado Andres Rodriguez
Julio Morales Ricardo Guilbe Rafael Rodriguez
Victor Torres Hernan Cortez, Francisco Vazquez -
Jose L. Olavarria Radames ' Natal Guillermo Cedeflo
Guillermo Santiago Jorge Lucas Secola Luis Mendez Santos
Carmelo Morales Mariano Santiago Ruiz Luis David Mejias
Efrain Jimenez Victor J. Caraballo Juan Rodriguez Sotero
Ramon Vargas Sotero Felix Echevarria Ramon Mejias Negron
Juan Tantao Juan Tones Hector Santiago
Hector Rodriguez Felix Robles Elisi Nunez
Obdulio Torres Guadalupe Mendez Joaquin Almestica
Juan Gallego Eloy Zayas Juan Oliveras
Juan Rentas Chamorro Jose Garcia Antonio Ruiz
Ernesto Rodriguez Tomas Echevarria F. Teissonniers
Jose Gonzalez Natal Julio Perez Quinones Hilario Rodriguez
Francisco Cedeno Juan Mendez, Jr. Martin Rodriguez
Juan Almestica Juan Robles Juan Perez
Pastor Tones Felix Mendez Luis A. Figueroa
Bienvenido Santiago Bartolo Garcia
APPENDIX C
CORRECTIONS OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING i
P. 10, 1. 6, change "one of the contents was" to "one of the conditions was"..
P. 14,1. 4, change "settlement did not have" to "settlement did have".
P. 14,1. 9, insert "but are" before "still considering".
P. 14,1. 18, insert "offer" between "only" and "that".
P. 15, 11. 18-19, change "that after investigation the -Regional Office has come
to the conclusion that there has been" to "that after investigation the Regional
Office had come to the conclusion that there had been".
1 Reference is made to the line Identified by the number ; page and line are referred to by
the letter "P." and "1 11 respectively.
954 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR . RELATIONS BOARD
P. 16,1:8, change "you , to them" to "us to them".
P. 35;11. 20 , 23 and 24 , change "McLane" to McLean".
;P. 40,' 1. 9, change "ILA -local which still ILA Loxal " to "ILA local which is
still an ILA local".
P. 41, 1. 13 , change "employer had not recognized" to "employer was not to
recognize".
P. 41, 1. 18 , change "having two port units" to "having a two-port unit".
P. 41,1. 24 , change "currounding" to "surrounding".
P.-42,- ,11. 17- 18; change "I think it shows the respondent adopted these offers of"
to "I think it will be shown that respondent adopted these statements of'.
P. 43, 1. 11 ; change "the. scheduled ships" to "the schedule of ships".
P. 43, 11. 17-18, change "both of the trailer-vans" to "both carry the trailer-vans".
P. 43,,1. 25 to p . 44, 1. 4, change "that the C-4, although it flies 'W' on its stack"
to "that the C-4's, although they fly a 'W' on their stacks".
P. 44, 1. 9 , change "to this, Waterman 'C-4" to "to the Waterman C-4's".
P. 45, 1. 17 , change "strike is a fair labor practice" to "strike is an . unfair labor
practice strike".
P. 50,1. 4 , change "proceedings and the" to "proceeding in the".
P. 56,1. 5 , change "southern port" to "southern ports".
P. 61,1. 7, change "add" to "bring". .
P. 67,1. 6 , change "at all common" to "at all uncommon".
P. 94, 1. 24 , change "and non-union grievances" to "and handle union grievances".
P. 103 , 1. 24, change "International Longshoremen's Association " to "Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Longshoremen".
P. 127 , 1. 20, change "adopt a discretion" to "adopt your disposition".
P. 164 , 1. 5, change "between" to "for".
P. 176 , 1. 11, change "local 1755" to "Local 1575".
P. 185, 1. 13, change "the relevancy which" to "the remedy which".
P. 201 , 1. 7, change "in terms of" to "and terms of".
P. 224,1. 6, change "break-boat cargo" to "break-bulk cargo".
P. 233 , 11. 19, 20 and 22 , change 'Brasoo" to Braseau".
P. 234, H. 5, 12 and 23 , change "Brasoo" to "Braseau".
P. 256 , 11. 17 and 18 , change "Xavier" to ` Eusebio".
P. 295 , 1. 22, change "he was" to "he has".
P. 299,1. 18, change "I called" to "he called".
P. 304 , 1. 23, change, "resumed work on" Ito "resumed the strike on".
P. 305 , 1. 11, insert "by the" between "rights" and "July".
P. 309 , 1. 10, change "I don 't even allow him the" to "I won 't even rely on the".
P. 309, 1. 13, change "July 1st" to "July 30th".
P. 309 , 1. 21, change "in the court before" to "of this sort before".
P. 314 , 1. 13, change "suggestion to Mr . Montero" to "suggestion of Mr . Montero".
P. 317 , 11. 9-10, change "that these are supervisors " to "that he is a supervisor".
P. 328,1. 16, change•"our motion" to "or motion".
P. 328 , 1. 17, change "stress" to "continue".
P. 363, 1. 10, change "accept the" to "except to the".
P. 385, 1. 22, change "by having new people" to "by having few people".
P. 390, 1. 23, change "take a position" to "take no position".
P. 402 , 1. 22, change "plywood" to "cardboard".
P. 406 , 1. 21, change "does" to "did".
P. 409 , 1. 10, change "right-hand side" to "left-hand side".
P. 415 , 1. 25, delete the word "telephone" before "conversation".
P. 417 , 1. 9, change "for the acceptance of .to "for the substance of".
P. 421 1. 18, change "on this case" to "on this occasion".
P. 425 , 1.23, change "disaffiliate with" to "affiliate with".
P. 426 6, change "not Perez Rosas" to "not Pedro Rosas".
P. 445 , 1. 13, change "a liquidation" to "a calculation".
P. 464 , 11. 23-24 , change "not taken by Board agents nor which refer to the
Board , which would be immaterial and irrelevant to the" to "not taken by Board
agents but which were referred to the Board , and which would be material and
relevant to the".
P. 475 , 1. 8, change "it was the 21st of" to "it on the 21st of".
P. 482 , 1.21; change "is proper" to "is improper".
P. 515 , 1:.21, change ;"fuentes" to "Puentes".
P. 534 , 1.21, change "the ILA members" to "the ILO members".
P. 545,1 . 6, change "Mr. Pedro Moreno" to "Mr. Eusebio Moreno".
P. 546 , 1. 11, change "Mr. Xavier Moreno" to "Mr. Eusebio Moreno".
P. 547 , 1. 7, change "Efrain Fuentes" to "Efrain Puentes".
+:: SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC., ETC. 955
P. 553,11. 18 and 19, change "Xavier•Moreno"'to "Eusebio Moreno".
P. 559,1. 7, change "an ILO member" to "an ILA member".
P. 559,1. 9, change "Xavier Moreno" to "Eusebio Moreno".
P. 566,1.25,'change "have been seen at the piers" to- "have been subpenaed".
P. 598, 11. 15-16, change. "that constructive work has been made by him" to
"assignment of work has been made to him".
P. 601,1. 20, change "a member of ILA" to "a member of ILO".
P. 623,1. 4, change "the city" to "the island".
P. 629,1. 25, add "not" between "is" and "relevant".
P. 647, 1. 22, change "Doesn't that agree with your statement" to "Wouldn't
you agree that's your statement".
P. 676, 1. 10, change "Three-tenths." to "Six-tenths.".
P. 677, 1..8; change "this job has" to "this man has".
P. 685,1. 6, change "that they don't." to "that they didn't." .
P. 695, 1. 22, change "it's kind of late for the equivalent" to "They relate to the
equivalent".
P. 706,11.20-21, change "Sergeant Irizarry" to "Lieutenant Irizarry".
P. 722,1. 23, change "Mr. Montero" to "Mr. Arroyo".
P. 722,1.24, change "WITNESS" to "MR. ARROYO".
P. 743,1. 13, change "president" to "vice president".,
P. 744,1. 15, change "one ILA president" to "one ILA union".
P. 750, 1. 23, change "to July 2, 1962, which is not" to "of July 2, 1962, and is
not".
P. 764,1. 21, insert "and" before "considered in".
P. 767,1. 10, change "why we should" to "what they should".
P. 788, 11. 18-19, change "was meeting Mr. Bailey" to "was talking with Mr.
Bailey".
P. 802,1. 5, change "for organization" to "for authorization".
P. 808,1. 24, change "Mejias speaking, here" to "Mejias is here".
P. 851,1. 8, change "I crawled" to "I walked".
P. 892,1. 22, change "be given to read" to "be given time to read".
P. 893, 11. 20-21, change "it is offered or not" to "it is proper or not".
P. 896,1. 6, change "other works" to "other words". '
P. 902, 11. 18-19, change "testimony I am interested in but I do not want to close
my case on that point but on the 10, 11 and 12-will you stipulate" to "testimony
I am interested in and I, am willing to close my case on that point but not asto 10,
11 and 12-and the matter".
P. 906, 1. 18, change "I was not able to contact Mr. Valencia" to "I have not at-
tempted to contact Mr. Valencia".
P. 910,1. 16, change "McLane" to "McLean".
P. 910, 1. 18, change "or writtenun-" to "or written understanding".
P. 910, 1. 20, change "I understand this is a normal vessel" to " I understand there
is another vessel".
P. 910,1.22, change "No vans here" to "The same as".
P. 939, 1. 19, change "a log of your actions" to "a lot of transactions".
P. 940,1.25, change "TRIAL EXAMINER" to "MR. HORN".
P. 952,1. 12, change "it was not being" to "it was being".
P. 959,1. 24, change "Was he concerned" to "That were concerned".
P. 962,1. 23, change "I do not if it would" to "I do not know if it would".
P. 966, 1. 11, change "William Garcia de Jesus" to "William Carrasquillo de
Jesus".
P. 969, 1. 25, change "Lt. Ortiz" to "Sgt. Ortiz".
P. 976, 1. 19, change "who is here" to "who was here".
P. 980, 1. 25, insert "report to an" after "did you make any".
P. 995, 1. 25, change "knowledge but he did work at" to "knowledge but he
was at".
P. 1002,1. 25, change "burning in" to "burning is".
P. 1018, 11. 21-22, change "it has already been received and Mr. Ruiz made the
investigation" to "it had already been received when Mr. Ruiz came into the
investigation".
P. 110 7, change "left out things" to "covered things".
P. 1101,1. 10, change "would be in" to "would not be in".
P. 1107,1. 20, change "you go and" to "you go on and".
P. 1115,1. 12, change "and and Mr." to "you and Mr.".
P. 1118,1. 24, change "September 27, 1962" to "September 7, 1962".
P. 1123,1. 18, change "Mr. Bradley" to "Mr. Bailey".
P. 1130,1. 24, change "Elias Nunez" to "Elisi Nunez".
956 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
P. 1147, 11. 22-23, change "was being sent to the" .to "should be sent to the".
P. 1147, 1. 24, change "to ILO" to "the Board".
P. 1148 , 1. 14, change "it is too late" to "it is probably late".
P. 1148 , 1. 22, change "have rules at that time one one or" to "have ruled at
that time one way or".
P. 1149, 1. 16, change "copy was being sent" to "copy should be sent".
P. 1150, 1. 13, change "he was sending copy" to "we sent a copy".
P. 1152, 1. 25, change "sent a" to "said to send".
P. 1153,1. 14, change "sent copy" to "said to send copy".
P. 1155,1. 9, change "RM and LMB" to "RM and FAB".
P. 1182 , 1. 4, change "litigate an 8(a )(5) charge" to "litigate a general 8(a)(5)
charge".
P. 1189, 1. 16, change "to the lawyers have any objection?" to "do the lawyers
have any objection?".
P. 1197, 1. 24, change "car check" to "card check".
P. 1204,11. 15, 17, 18, 22 and 23, change "Brazeau" to "Braseau".
P. 1205,11. 10, 12, 16, 18, 20 and 23, change "Brazeau" to "Braseau".
P. 1206, 1. 10, change "Brazeau" to "Braseau".
P. 1206,1 . 24, change "Brazeaus" to "Braseau's".
P. 1207,11. 7, 13, 14 and 20, change "Brazeau" to "Braseau".
P. 1208,1 . 22, change "Brazeau" to "Braseau".
P. 1209,11. 18, 20 and 20-21 , change "Brazeau" to "Braseau".
P. 1210,11.5 and 7, change "Brazeau" to "Braseau".
P. 1210, 1. 19, change "for a board" to "for an on board".
P. 1210,1. 22, change "of aboard gang" to "of an on board gang".
P. 1211,1. 12, change "Brazeau" to "Braseau".
P. 1217, 1. 9, change "39-A" to "29-A".
P. 1220, 1. 4, change "Brazeau's" to "Braseau's".
P. 12209 1. 12, change "Nrazeau" to "Braseau".
P. 1220,1. 21, change "Brazeau" to "Braseau".
P. 1222,1. 4, change "Brazeau" to "Braseau".
P. 1233,11. 13 and 20, change "Brazeau" to "Braseau".
P. 1234,11. 5, 11, 13, 14 and 16, change "Brazeau" to `Braseau".
P. 1237,1. 20, add "Roura" after " Rodriguez Diaz or".
P. 123 8, 1. 8, change "Mr. Montero" to "Mr. Bailey".
P. 1238 , 1. 25, change "after July 30, on" to "after July 30?".
P. 1239,1. 14, change "Mr. Duer" to "Mr. Duen".
P. 1239,1. 17, change "does German" to "does Bonano".
P. 1242,1 . 6, change "a letter headed" to "a letterhead of".
P. 1243,1.22, change "Mr. Duer" to "Mr. Duen".
P. 1244, 1. 4, change "Mr. Duer" to "Mr . Duen".
P. 1247,1. 23, change "July 26" .to "July 31".
P. 1248, 11. 12-13, change "that it applied in or" to "that they applied for in or".
P. 1249, 1. 4, change "that he had objected to any" to "that he would object to
any" .
Local 282, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America and United States
Trucking Corporation . Case No. 2-CC-764. April 20, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On charges duly filed October 11, 1962, by United States Trucking
Corporation, the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations
Board issued a complaint dated November 8, 1962, against Local 282,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, alleging that the Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
146 NLRB No. 112.