Sonoco of Puerto Rico, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 2, 1974

210 N.L.R.B. 493 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

SONOCO OF PUERTO RICO, INC. 493
Sonoco of Puerto Rico, Inc. and Division Industrial,
Tecnica y Profesional de la National Maritime
Union of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case
24-RC-4979
May 2, 1974
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon
Consent Election executed by the parties and
approved by the Regional Director for Region 24 of
the National Labor Relations Board on March 15,
1973, an election by secret ballot was conducted in
the above-entitled proceeding on April 27, 1973,
under the direction and supervision of said Regional
Director. Upon the conclusion of the election, a tally
of ballots was furnished the parties in accordance
with the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended.
The tally of ballots shows that there were approxi-
mately 19 eligible voters and that 19 ballots were
cast, of which 11 were for the Petitioner, and 8 were
against the Petitioner. There were no void or
challenged ballots.
On May 4, 1973, the Employer filed timely
objections to conduct affecting the results of the
election. The Regional Director completed an inves-
tigation of the objections and, thereafter, on July 30,
1973, issued and served on the parties his Report on
Objections. In his report, the Regional Director
recommended to the Board that all the objections be
overruled and that the appropriate certification be
issued. Thereafter, on August 16, 1973, the Employer
filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's
report, contending that the election should be set
aside and a rerun election ordered or, in the
alternative, that the case be remanded to the
Regional Director for a hearing on objections.
On November 2, 1973, the Board ordered that a
hearing be held before a duly designated Hearing
Officer for the purpose of receiving evidence to
resolve the issues raised with respect to Employer's
objections.
Pursuant to the Board's Order, a hearing was held
on December 20 and 21, 1973, before Hearing
Officer Sidney Smith. All parties participated and
were given full opportunity to examine and cross-
examine witnesses and to introduce evidence bearing
on the issues. On January 28, 1974, the Hearing
Officer issued and duly served on the parties his
report, in which he recommended that the Employ-
er's objections be overruled and that the Petitioner
210 NLRB No. 72
be certified as the bargaining representative. There-
after, the Employer filed timely exceptions to the
Hearing Officer's report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of employees within the
meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees em-
ployed by the Employer at its factory located at
Las Piedras, Puerto Rico, including saw-men, roll
catchers, trimmermen, packers, chauffers, opera-
tors, quality control employees, and laborers, but
excluding all office clerical employees, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by
the Hearing Officer at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Hearing Officer's report, the Employer' s exceptions
thereto, and the entire record in this case . We agree
with the Employer that certain conduct by employ-
ees, hereafter described, requires that the election be
set aside.
Relying on the Hearing Officer's credibility resolu-
tions, we find that the following activity interfered
with the free choice of the employees and destroyed
the laboratory conditions of the election:
(1) The day before the election the Petitioner
hosted a party at "Mickey's Bar" which was attended
by Laboy and Quinones, representatives of the
Petitioner, Agustin Benitez, AFL-CIO regional
director, and 13 employees. At the meeting Victor
Rivera, who was characterized as the "spearhead" of
union activity, stated that there were 13 employees
present and the 13 had to vote for the Union.
Furthermore, the Hearing Officer credited testimony
that Santos Lopez, who was found to be one of the
three most active union adherents , stated he expected
494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
13 votes to be for the Petitioner, otherwise there
would be "blows and slaps."
(2) Two weeks before the election, employee Jose
A. Prado, who was also found to be one of the three
most active union adherents, in the presence of
employee Luis Rivera Concepcion, stated to Angel
Velazquez Estela that "if you don't vote for the
union, you will be beaten up."
(3) On the morning of the election, while inside the
plant, prounion employee Juan Ramon Velazquez
showed employee Hiram Vaquez Algarin his injured
finger and stated that the same would happen to
those who did not comply with the pact to vote for
the Union.
(4) A few days before the election, Santos Lopez
told Jose Antonio Roque Maldonodo, an employee,
that there "would be blows on election day."'
The Hearing Officer concluded the evidence was
lacking that the above-mentioned incidents created
an atmosphere of fear which rendered a free election
impossible. After a thorough review of the entire
record, we draw different inferences and conclusions
from the facts.2
Although none of the threats involved herein was
attributable to the Union, it has long been estab-
lished that, while conduct not attributable to either
I This incident was set forth in the Hearing Officer's report and was
based on the testimony of Roque However, the Heanng Officer comment-
ed, "Roque did not report this incident to any supervisor" and apparently
for that reason the Hearing Officer did not further discuss the incident in his
conclusions . We find Roque's failure to report the threat to be an
insufficient reason for disregarding this incident. Since the Hearing Officer
specifically credited Roque's testimony on other incidents, and, since
Roque's testimony as to this threat stands uncontradicted and undenied on
this record, we find that it should be considered.
2 See Food Store Employees Union, Local 347, Amalgamated Meat Cutters
and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO [G. C Murphy Co.] v.
party to an election may be grounds for setting aside
the election, less weight is accorded to such conduct
than to the conduct of the parties.3 In such
circumstances, however, the Board has set aside
elections where the conduct created a general
atmosphere among the employees of confusion and
fear of reprisal for failing to vote for or to support the
Union.4
Here on four different occasions employees were
threatened with the obvious aim of coercing the
employees to vote for the Union, or suffer physical
harm or injury. We are of the opinion that the
character of the conduct was so aggravated as to
create an atmosphere of fear and reprisal which
rendered a free expression of choice of representa-
tives impossible, and thus destroyed the laboratory
conditions of the election.5
We shall therefore set aside the election and direct
that a second election be held.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the election in this case
conducted on April 27, 1973, be, and it hereby is, set
aside.
[Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot-
note omitted from publication.]
N L.R B, 422 F.2d 685 (C A.D.C, 1969), enfg. 171 NLRB 370; Sign and
Pictorial Union Local 1175, Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and
Paperhangers of America, AFL-CIO [Webster Outdoor Advertising Co.] v.
N L R B., 419 F 2d 726 (C.A D.C., 1969), enfg 170 NLRB 1395.
3 Cross Baking Company, Inc., 191 NLRB 27, reversed on other grounds
453 F.2d 1346 (C.A I, 1971)
4 Steak House Meat Company, Inc, 206 NLRB No. 3; Diamond State
Poultry Co, Inc, 107 NLRB 3.
5 Steak House Meat Co., supra,: Poinsett Lumber and Manufacturing
Company, 116 NLRB 1732.