The Chase National Bank of the City of New York.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 30, 1945

63 N.L.R.B. 656 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of THE CHASE NATIONAL BANK OF THE CITY OF NEW
YORK, SAN JUAN, PUERTORICO, BRANCH 1 and UNION DE EMPLEADOS
DE BANCOS DE PUERTO RICO (C. G. T.)
Case No. 1941-C-64.-Decided, August 30, 1945
DECISION
AND
ORDER
0
On November 29, 1944, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
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 copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, on February 15, 1945, the respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
• The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.
On July 19, 1945, the Board heard oral argument at Washington,
D. C. The respondent was represented by counsel who participated
in the argument; the Union did not appear.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the respond-
ent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner, save as they are inconsistent with our findings, conclusions,
and order hereinafter set forth.
The Trial Examiner has found that on August 22, 1944, and at all
times thereafter, the Union represented a majority of the respondent's
44 employees in an appropriate unit and that the respondent unlaw-
fully refused to bargain collectively with the Union at all times after
August 22, 1944. The finding of majority representation as of August
22 is based on evidence which shows that during July 1944, 22 em-
ployees paid union dues for June; that between August 1 and 15, 1944,
' The respondent was erroneously refarred to in the fo1 mal papers as "The Chase National
Bank San Juan ( Puerto Rico ) Branch " Pursuant to a stipulation made at the hearing
between Board ' s counsel and the respondent 's counsel , the name of the respondent was
corrected to read as above.
63 N. L. R. B., No. 101.
656
THE CHASE NATIONAL BANK OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK 657
3 additional employees paid union dues; and that on August 7 another
employee signed a union membership application . Such evidence
ordinarily would be sufficient to warrant a finding of majority repre-
sentation. But, in view of the circumstances set forth below, these
figures are not wholly persuasive . Upon the entire record, we are
unable to conclude that the Union actually represented a majority of
the employees at any time material herein.
There is no evidence in the record of any union activity among the
employees of the respondent before the early part of June 1944, at
which time employee Luis Manuel Vazquez and several of his friends
started an organizing campaign among the employees of the various
banks in San Juan, Puerto Rico, including the employees of the re-
spondent . As a result of this campaign, Union De Empleados De
Bancos De Puerto Rico, an unaffiliated labor organization herein called
the U . E. B., was formed in late June or early July 1944. Between
July 14 and 22, 1944, 15 of the respondent 's employees paid dues to,
and thereby became members of, the U. E. B. On July 22 , 1944, how-
ever, at a regular meeting of the U. E. B., a majority of the members
present voted to affiliate with Confederation General De Trabajadores,
herein called the C. G. T.2 On July 27 , 1944, the C. G. T. issued a
certificate of affiliation to the U. E. B.
Thereafter , the affiliated U. E. B., herein called the Union, attempted
to collect dues and obtain membership applications from the respond-
ent's employees . The results of these efforts are summarized as fol-
lows : Of the 15 employees mentioned above, who had paid dues to
the unaffiliated U. E. B., 7 subsequently also paid dues to the Union,
and 4, without paying dues, signed membership applications therein.
None of the remaining 4, however , made a dues payment after the
affiliation , signed a membership application in the Union , or otherwise
indicated a desire to be represented by the Union . Nine other em-
ployees , who were not members of the unaffiliated U. E. B. paid dues
to the Union between July 31 and August 18, 1944. One other em-
ployee in this group signed a membership application in the Union
on August 7, 1944. Thus , when the Union requested recognition on
August 22 1944, only 21 of the 44 employees in the appropriate unit
had unambiguously and affirmatively designated the Union , as dis-
tinguished from the unaffiliated U. E. B., as their bargaining agent
either by paying dues or by signing membership applications subse-
quent to the affiliation.
It is apparent that, in making his finding of majority representation,
the Trial Examiner counted the four employees , mentioned above,
2 The record is not clear with respect to the number of the respondent's employees who
attended the U. E. B. meeting of July 22. However, there is evidence in the record indicat-
ing that some of the respondent's employees, who were members of the U. E. B. at that
time, were opposed to the affiliation.
658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
who paid dues to the U. E. B. in July prior to its affiliation with the
C. G. T., but who thereafter failed to pay dues or to sign a membership
application in the Union. However, in our opinion it is doubtful
whether such designation of the unaffiliated U. E. B. by these four em-
ployees necessarily served to authorize the Union to act as their bar-
gaining representative on August 22, when the alleged refusal to bar-
gain occurred. This is especially true in view of the showing that
some of the respondent's employees were opposed to the affiliation and
that although the Union actively campaigned, with much success,
among the respondent's employees, the four employees in question
failed to indicate in any objective manner their adherence to the
Union.
Upon the whole record, we are not sufficiently satisfied that the
Union at any time material herein ever represented a majority of the
respondent's employees in the appropriate unit. We shall accord-
ingly dismiss the 8 (5) allegation of the complaint.
In reaching this conclusion, we are not unmindful of the fact that
the respondent engaged in other serious unfair labor practices, as re-
vealed by the Intermediate Report, which were calculated to, and did,
frustrate the efforts of its employees to organize for the purpose of
collective bargaining. Like the Trial Examiner, we find discrimina-
tory the discharge of Vazquez and the actions of the respondent in
urging its employees to surrender their union affiliations. The re-
medial provisions of our order, set forth below, will adequately safe-
guard the statutory right of the employees to resume and continue their
concerted activities in behalf of the Union, or any other labor organ-
ization of their choosing.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the-National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, The Chase National Bank
of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch, and its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Union De Empleados De Bancos
De Puerto Rico (C. G. T.), or any other labor organization of its em-
ployees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees,
or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or
tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist Union De Empleados De Bancos
De Puerto Rico (C. G. T.), or any other labor organization, to bar-
THE CHASE NATIONAL BANK OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK 659
gain collectively - through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in concerted activities , for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing, or other mutual aid or protection , as guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Luis Manuel Vazquez immediate and full reinstatement
to his former or a substantially equivalent position , without prejudice
to his seniority and other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole Luis Manuel Vazquez for any loss of pay he has
suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against him, by
payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount which he
normally would have earned as wages during the period from the
date of his discharge to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstate-
ment, less his net earnings during such period, including the $100
which the respondent gave him in lieu of notice of discharge;
(c) Post at its bank in San Juan, Puerto Rico, copies of the notice
attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Chairman of the Puerto Rico Labor Relations Board,
shall, after being duly signed by the respondent's representatives, be
posted by the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and main-
tained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the said respondent to
iusure,that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material;
(d) Notify the Chairman of the Puerto Rico Labor Relations Board
in writing, within ten (10) clays from the date of this Order, what
steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTI-IER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges
that the respondent refused to bargain collectively with Union De
Empleados De Bancos De Puerto Rico (C. G. T.), within the meaning
of Section 8 (5) of the Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
N. L Ii B 557
(9-1-44)
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a decision and order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form labor organizations , to join or assist Union De Empleados
662514-46-vol. 13-43
660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
De Bancos De Puerto Rico (C. G. T.) or any other labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
We will offer to the employees named below immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions
without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges
previously enjoyed; and make them whole for any loss of pay
suffered as a result of the discrimination.
Luis Manuel Vazquez.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the
above-named union or any other labor organization. We will not dis-
criminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment against any employee because of membership
in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
THE CHASE NATIONAL BANK OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
SAN JUAN, PUERTO Rico, BRANCH,
By--------------------------------------- -------------
(Representative) (Title)
Dated ------------------------
NOTE : Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States will be offered full reinstatement
upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act after
discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof. and
must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Messrs. Step/ten At. Reynolds and Gilberto Ramirez, for the Board.
Fiddler & Gonzales, by Messrs. Jose G. Gonzales and Tomas I. Nido, of San
Juan, Puerto Rico, for the respondent.
STATE\LENr OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed on September 19, 1944, by Union De Em-
pleados De Bancos De Puerto Rico, affiliated with the Confederacion General
de Trabajores de Puerto Rico,' herein called the Union, the National Labor Re-
lations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Twenty-
fourth Region (San Juan, Puerto Rico), issued its complaint, dated September
19, 1944, against The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan,
Puerto Rico, Branch, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies
of the complaint and amended charge, accompanied by notice of hearing thereon,
were duly served upon the respondent and the Union.
i Confederacion General de Trabajores de Puerto Rico is referred to herein as C. G. T_
THE CHASE NATIONAL BANK OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK 661
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in substance,
that the respondent: (1) since July 15, 1944, interrogated its employees regarding
their union memberships and activities; (2) warned its employees against be-
coining or remaining members of the Union; (3) threatened its employees with
reprisals because of their union activities ; (4) caused to be prepared and cir-
culated among the employees, a petition purporting in part to accomplish the
withdrawal or resignation from the Union of the signatories to the said petition;
(5) caused to be prepared and circulated among its employees, letters of resig-
nations from the Union and after certain of the employees had signed the said
letters mailed the signed letters to an official of the Union ; (6) discharged Luis
Manuel Vazquez on August 15, 1944, and thereafter refused to reinstate him to
his former or to a substantially equivalent position, because he joined and
assisted the Union and engaged in concerted activities with his fellow employees
for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection; (7)
on August 22, 1944, and at all times thereafter, although duly requested, refused
to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of the em-
ployees in an appropriate unit, although the Union had been designated as their
representative for such purpose by a majority of such employees; and (8) by the
foregoing acts interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
The respondent filed an answer denying the commission of the alleged unfair
labor practices. The answer admitted, however, the allegations of the com-
plaint as to its corporate existence and the nature and character of the business
transacted by it. The answer aihrniatively alleged that Vazquez was discharged
for the reason that the respondent did not consider hire to be a person fit for
performing the duties for which lie was employed. The answer also affirma-
tively alleged that it did not refuse to bargain collectively with the Union and
that it is now ready and willing to bargain collectively with any duly authorized
representative of the rilajority of its employees provided proof is furnished
the respondent that the said representative in fact does represent the majority
of the employees The answer contains three motions to dismiss the complaint.
The first motion is based on the ground that the Board is without jurisdiction
over the respondent or over the subject matter of this case. The second and
third motions are based on the ground that a copy of the amended charge was
not annexed to or served upon the respondent at the time of the service of the
complaint and notice of hearing. Several days prior to the date set for the
hearing, the Board served upon the respondent, and upon its counsel, copies of
the amended charge
Pursuant to notice, a bearing was held on October 2, 3, 4, 11, and 12, 1944, at
San Juan, Puerto Rico, before Howard Myers, the undersigned Trial Examiner,
duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent
were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. Before the introduction of
any evidence, counsel for the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the
grounds that the branch herein involved is located in Puerto Rico and that The
Chase National Bank of the City of New York was created by, and is existing
under, the banking laws of the United States and as such it is not within the
purview of the Act and therefore the Board has no jurisdiction over the re-
spondent or over the subject matter in this case.2 Decision thereon was reserved.
2 The respondent 's counsel also pressed the motions , contained in the answer , to dismiss
the complaint for failure to serve a copy of the amended charge with the complaint. As
stated above , this motion was subsequently withdrawn.
662 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This motion was renewed at the end of the Board's case, at which time the
undersigned denied the motion Counsel for the respondent then moved to
dismiss the complaint for lack of proof. The motion was denied Board's coun-
sel then moved to conform the complaint to the proof with respect to minor
discrepancies, such as misspelled words, typographical errors, and the like but
not to include any new unfair labor practices The motion was granted over
the objection of the respondent's counsel. At the conclusion of the taking of
evidence, the respondent's counsel moved to conform the answer to the proof.
The motion was granted. Respondent's counsel then moved to dismiss the com-
plaint for lack of proof. Decision was reserved The motion is hereby denied.
Oral argument, in which Board's counsel and the respondent's counsel partici-
pated, was heard at the conclusion of the taking of the evidence and is part of the
record. Time to file briefs with the undersigned was given all parties No
briefs have been received
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes, in addition to the above, the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I . THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Chase National Bank of the City of New York. the world's largest bank,
was organized under the banking laws of the United States. Its head office is
at 18 Pine Street, New York, New York. It has 35 or 36 branches throughout
the City of New York, a branch in Puerto Rico, and foreign branches in Panama,
Cuba, and England. Its capitalization is 110 million dollars, its surplus is 110
million dollars and its deposits amount to approximately 5 billion dollars The
Puerto Rico branch, the only branch involved in this pi oceeding, was opened in
1933, after permission was obtained from the Comptroller General of the United
States and from the Insular Government of Puei to Rico Its offices are located
in San Juan Control over the activities of this branch is vested in the head
office officials who appoint the managers and the other superiors of the bianch
and pass upon all salary increases The average deposits of this branch vary
from 8 to 10 million dollars, approximately $75,000 or $100,000 of which repre-
sents money deposited by the head office The branch's average deposits with
the head office vary from 8 to 10 million dollars Through the head office, this
branch purchases and sells stocks and bonds on the New York Stock Exchange
for the accounts of its customers. It makes loans to individuals and firms located
within the United States; it also opens letters of credit, in substantial amounts,
for the accounts of manufacturers located in the United States: it handles
accounts for Puerto Rican Companies who do business in the United States and
helps finance the shipment of commodities between the United States and Puerto
Rico; it cashes travelers' checks and checks drawn on banks located throughout
the United States and sends these checks to the head office for collection; it
facilitates the handling of its customers' businesses with banks in the United
States and services the needs of its customers who may be travelling abroad;
and it has substantial amounts of money on deposit with a bank located in New
Orleans, Louisiana, and with a London bank
The undersigned finds that the respondent's operations affects commerce within
the meaning of the Act.' Moreover, Section 2 (6) of the Act confers jurisdiction
3 See N L. R B. v Bank of America Ass'n, 130 F (2d) 624 (C. C A 9), cert denied
318 U. S. 791, rehearing on petition for cert denied 319 U S 782 ; American National Bank
of St Paul v N. L R. B, 144 F. (2d) 268 (C C. A 8) , N. L. R B. v. Northern Tiust
Company, 56 Fed Supp 335 (U S. Dist Ct Ill ; N. L R B v American National Bank
and Dust Co of Chicago, decided July 3, 1944 (U S Dist Ct Ill )
THE CHASE NATIONAL BANK OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK 663
on the Board over an employer whose business is confined exclusively "within
the District of Columbia or any Territory" of the United States 4
II THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Union De Empleados De Bancos De Puerto Rico is a labor organization affiil-
iated with Confederacion General de Trabajores de Puerto Rico and admits
to membership employees of the respondent
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion; the discriniinatoiii discharge
of Vazquez
1. Chronological statement of the facts
There is no evidence in the record of any union activity among the employees
of the respondent prior to June 1944. During the latter part of that month or
early in July, Luis Manuel Vazquez, respondent's first teller,' spoke to various
employees regarding the Union and invited them and employees of other Puerto
Rico banks to attend meetings of the Union" During the formative stages of the
Union, Vazquez became one of its officers and one of his duties was the collection
of dues from the respondent's employees who desired to join the Union. Between
July 14 and July 31, twenty-two of the forty-five non-supervisory employees then
in the respondent's employ paid their June dues to Vazquez.' Three additional
employees paid him dues in August. Vazquez's membership and activities in
behalf of the Union soon came to the knowledge of the respondent's supervisory
officers Thus, around the middle of July, Kenneth Spinning, respondent's as-
sistant manager, asked Vazquez whether he was the Union's president. Vazquez
replied that he was not its president, but was one of its members Also in July,
according to the undenied credible testimony of Vazquez, Russell Ferrer, the
then head of the current account department and admittedly a supervisory em-
ployee, had several talks with Vazquez regarding the Union and the progress it
was making in organizing the respondent's eniplolees During one of these talks
Ferrer told Vazquez, according to the latter's credible undenied testimony, that
he thought the Union was "something good" and that e -entually the Union
would succeed in its organizational drive In another conversation, Vazquez
quotes Ferrer as saying that Charles J Schaer, the respondent's manager, was
trying to ascertain who, among the respondent's employees, was the leader of
the Union In still another conversation, Ferrer told Vazquez that, in his opinion,
it was more advantageous for the Union not to affiliate with the C G. T.8 Further-
more, Jose Antonio Gonzalez, Fred M Ahles and Domingo Rinaldi, admittedly
supervisory employees, testified that in July they knew that Vazquez was a mem-
ber of and active on behalt of the Union. Schaer admitted that in July he also
was cognizant of the Union's organizational drive and that he knew that Vazquez
and several other employees were members of the Union.
4 Cf N L R. B v. Central Dispensary & Emergency Hospital (Ct. of Appeals D C.)
decided November 13, 1944
'In June 1944, Vazquez was appointed first teller. Prior thereto he was second teller.
The first teller occupies the flu st cage, the busiest of all 4 teller cages Among other things,
be is permitted to have $60,000, in cash in his cage The other tellers, as of June through
September 1944, were permitted to have only $20,000 in their respective cages at any one
time . The first teller also handles the pay rolls for the respondent's larger customers
e The Union also admits to membership employees of other Puerto Rico banks
The June dues were collected in Tilly and the July dues were collected in August
Despite Ferier's advice, the Union affiliated with the C. G. N. on or about July 22, 1944.
664 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sometime in the latter part of July, Vazquez asked Schaer for a raise in salary
stating that he had not received an increase in over a year,' that his then position
warranted a larger salary due to the fact that it entailed more responsibility, that
his wife was in poor health and had resigned her job, and that because of the
loss of his wife's income they could not live on his salary. Schaer replied that he
would look into the matter and would advise Vazquez of his decision Not having
heard from Schaer, Vazquez wrote him on August 3 as follows :
Twenty days ago, more or less, I talked to you in relation with my salary,
seeing that, as I told you, I have not received any increase since a year ago.
You said to me that you would investigate my case, but as up to date I have
known nothing regarding the matter and having I now more necessity than
before, since my wife, because of health, has been obliged to resign her job,
and because (at the same time) the position I hold is of greater importance
than before, is why I remind you of this matter
Expecting to receive your accustomed attention and cooperation in the
matter, I remain,
On August 15, Schaer called Vazquez to his office and told him, according to
Schaer's testimony, that since he admittedly could not live on his salary he was
discharged because it was contrary to the respondent's policy to keep anyone in its
employ who could not live within his income
Just before closing time on August 15, Domingo Rmaldi, the head of the credit
department and admittedly a supervisory employee, told the collection depart-
ment employees, according to the testimony of employee Roberto Miranda Ro-
sario,10 that Vazquez was discharged because of his activities on behalf of the
Union and that since the employees were joining the Union, the respondent had
decided not to accept the proposal of the Puerto Rican Hospital Association to
make available to the respondent's employees that his association's hospitaliza-
tion plan and the respondent had decided to discontinue granting small loans to
the employees." Concerning this incident, Rinaldi testified as follows:
I happened to go down to the men's toilet, which is opposite the collection
department And when I was going out from the men's toilet I saw a bunch
of the employees talking over there It was about three o'clock, when they
were almost leaving. They were talking about helping Vazquez, and I joined
the conversation and gave a very personal opinion. It was my own, personal
opinion which I stated there. I said that by joining the union there was
nothing to be gained, but that I knew a proposition had been submitted to the
banks by the Puerto Rican Hospital Association, known as the Blue Cross,
which I knew they had asked the banks, if they would have 100 per cent
membership, there would be a special rate, and it seemed to me that it would
be approved by the banks. And they would be benefited by that .. As I
was saying, that was my personal opinion, and I felt there was a proposition
submitted to the banks and that that proposition was that if the banks would
assure 100 per cent membership for the Blue Cross, they would get a special
rate, and that, I knew, was being favorably considered by the bank. And I
felt that by this union movement, we would lose that benefit We would not
obtain that benefit I also said that so far the employees of the Chase Bank
were securing loans from the bank, that the bank had no objection, so far, to
0 Sometime in the early part of 1943 , Vazquez's salary was raised from $ 75 to $100 per
month.
10 Also referred to in the record as Roberto Miranda.
11 It is the respondent 's custom to allow the employees to borrow money to defray the
cost of unforeseen emergencies . No interest is charged and the loans are repaid in install-
ments deducted from the borrower ' s salary semi-monthly.
THE CHASE NATIONAL BANK OF THE CITY OF NEW YOIiK 665
granting the loans . But that eventually , if we were not loyal to our institu-
tion, we would lose that privilege . That was my own, personal opinion.
Rinaldi denied that he told the employees that Vazquez was discharged for union
activities . He testified , however, that that statement was made in his presence
and he attributed it to one of the employees to whom he was addressing his
remarks In view of the admission by Rinaldi of the above quoted anti-union
statements and his other admitted anti -union statements and activities , as more
fully set out below , the undersigned finds that , besides making the above quoted
remarks, he told the collection department employees on August 15, that Vazquez
was discharged because of his union activities . Furthermore, Gloria Lugo 12 tes-
tified that sometime in August , Rinaldi told her that he was not adverse to the
employees joining a union but that she and the other employees should not join
the C. G. T. because that organization "was composed for chauffeurs and steve-
dores etc ." While not specifically denying that he made the statement attributed
to him by Lugo, Rinaldi testified that the only time he talked to Lugo about the
Union was when he advised her to sign the petition , which was being circulated,
informing Schaer that the employees did not want the Union to represent them.
The undersigned finds that Rinaldi made the statement attributed to him by
Lugo
By letter dated August 19 , 13 the Union advised the respondent that it repre-
sented a majority of the respondent ' s employees . The letter also requested the
respondent to recognize the Union as the exclusive collective bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees and to fix a date for a conference to begin negotia-
tions 19 The San Juan newspaper the next day , August 23 , carried an article
in which it told of the Union 's demands upon the respondent . Shortly after the
employees arrived at work that morning, Isabel Cordero 16 told Fred M. Ahles,
the auditor of the respondent ' s operations and admittedly a supervisory em-
ployee, that some of the employees had informed her drat morning that they
wanted to resign from the Union and asked her to so notify Schaer. Ahles then
12 Also referred to in the record as Gloria Vazquez.
'3 The respondent did not receive the letter until August 22.
11 The respondent's refusal to bargain collectively with the Union is discussed below
in Section III B.
is The respondent disputes the supervisory status of Cordero Schaer testified that
Cordero "is in charge of the signature file and has, at the same time, something to do
with the exchange department, in that she helps out and indicates [to the employees]
what is to be done, by reason of the fact that she has had more experience than those
who are working in the exchange department." All transactions involving the purchases
and sales of stocks and bonds on the New York Stock Evchange, for the accounts of the
respondents' customers, go through the exchange department, in which department four
persons including Cordero, are employed Schaer, in his testimony, also referred to
Cordero as the "signature clerk" and stated that her duties as such were to check the
signatures appearing on checks, drafts, letters addressed to the respondent and corporate
resolutions. Schaer further testified that lie considered Cordero to be on a "higher level"
than the non-supervisory employees. At the hearing, several employees referred to
Cordero as being the head of the exchange department. The credible testimony reveals
that Cordero directs and assigns, the work of the other employees in the exchange depart-
ment. Despite the above findings regarding Cordero's duties, the record is not sufficiently
clear to support the contention of the Board that Cordero was, during all the times
material herein, a supervisor She did, however, exercise general authority over the
employees in the exchange department and was in a strategic position to translate to
the employees therein the policies and desires of the management It is clear that she
did exactly that. In circulating the petition of August 23, and in her talks with certain
employees, as described below, Cordero stressed the fact that the management would
prefer that the employees withdraw from the Union. In doing these things Cordero
was emulating the example set by the management The respondent is therefore held
accountable for her anti-union statements and activities See International Assn of
Machinists v. N. L. R. B , 311 U S. 72 , H. J. Heinz Co. v. N. L. R' B , 311 U. S. 514 ; and
N. L. R. B. v Link-Belt Co., 311 U. 8 584.
666 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
said that Cordero should not go to Schaer for he would handle the situation and
would prepare a memorandum addressed to Schaer informing him that the
signatories thereto did not want the Union to represent them and that he would'
submit the memorandum to Schaer after it had been signed by the employees 16
Allies then prepared a memorandum or petition addressed to Schaer captioned
as follows :
The undersigned employees do not accept the C. G. T as their bargaining
agent and request that you do not consider them as representing the majority
of the employees of this Bank.
We feel that if we wish anything from the Bank we ourselves can go to you
and talk the matter over without any outside help.
Those of us who are now members of tills organization have decided to
resign immediately.
After signing the petition and after having it signed by other supervisory and
non-supervisory employees, Ahles handed the petition to Cordero who signed it
and during working hours went throughout the respondent's bank and obtained
the signatures of all the employees, supervisory and non-supervisory who were
at work that day, except two non-supervisory employees who refused to sign the
petition." Later that day, Allies presented the signed petition to Schaer who,
after reading it, said "this is fine " Allies and Cordero testified that when they
presented the petition to an employee they asked him or her whether lie or she
wished to sign it, then if he or she replied in the negative they did not in any way
threaten the employee Rinaldi , however, testified that when he noticed that
Gloria Lugo was reluctant to sign the petition, he went over to her and told her
to sign the petition and thereby "show some gratitude [and] be grateful for the
help the [respondent] has given her and [that] she was not living np to that
standard" and she then signed the petition Rinaldi also testified that before
Lugo signed the petition he told her that he slid not think that she was "loyal" to
the respondent because she had joined the Union Rinaldi also admitted that
before the petition was circulated, he and "some of the employees talked things
over in the morning, and then, in the afternoon, we decided we would not accept
anybody to bargain for its and that if any bargaining was to be done we would
do it ourselves " Lugo's testimony is substantially in accord with that of
Rinaldi. Pablo Munoz testified that Cordero asked him on two or three occa-
sions to sign the petition. Each time he refused. When Munoz became per-
turbed because of Cordero's insistence that he sign the petition she told Munoz,
according to his credible testimony, that he should not resent it "because she had
been sent by Mr. Aliles" to get Munoz to sign the petition.38 Roberto Miranda
Rosario testified that Ahles asked him to lign the petition ; he told Allies he
would consider the matter; and that, as he was leaving for the day, Cordero
said to him "Miranda, they are going to give you the last chance to sign" the
petition Rosario did not sign the petition. Cordero denied making that state-
ment to Rosario. The undersigned rejects her denial and credits Rosario's tes-
timony. Munoz and Rosario were the two employees who did not sign the
petition.
The next day (August 24) Cordero told Allies that some of the employees
wanted to notify the Union that they were resigning from it and asked Allies if
11 Aides admitted that he had read the newspaper article before Cordero spoke to him
about the memorandum and that he was adverse to the employees joining or remaining.
members of the Union
17 Schaer and Spinning, the assistant manager , also did not sign the petition
18 Cordero denied that she asked Munoz or any eniplovee'niore than once to sign the
petition . The undersigned was not impressed with Cordero' s truthfulness and therefore
credits Munoz ' s testimony.
THE CHASE NATIONAL BANK OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK 667
the Union was to be apprised of the contents of the petition which was submitted
to Schaer Aides replied that the Union would not receive any direct notice of
the petition and suggested to Cordero that the employees send individual letters
of resignation to the Union Ahles then said that he would prepare letters of
resignation for the employees to send to the Union He then called upon Emma
Marin Marquez" and asked her to prepare such letters She asked Ahles what
to write Ahles then told her to ask Itmitldi because he understood Spanish
and the employees would probably understand the letter better if the letters
were written in Spanish. hanaldi dictated the letter although he knew, as indi-
cated by his testimony, that lie should not dictate such a letter. After Marquez
had typed a draft of what he had dictated she handed it to hinaldi for his ap-
proval, which he gave. Marquez then proceeded to type a great many letters of
resignation 20 She signed one and then asked four other employees to sign.
They chid so Marquez then took the 5 signed letters and the remaining unsigned
letters to Ahles The latter kept the signed letters and instructed Marquez to
place the unsigned ones on a desk so that the employees may see them Marquez
placed the letters on Cordero's desk. During the course of the day, 10 additional
employees signed letters of resignation. These letters were handed to Ahles,
who mailed the 15 letters to the Union in one envelope.21
2 Concluding findings
It is clear from the above recital of facts that the respondent was opposed
to its employees joining the Union and forcibly brought that fact to the employees'
attention when it discharged Vazquez on August 15, and when it prepared and
circulated the petition of August 23, and when it prepared and distributed the
letters of resignation. The respondent's contention that it did not discharge
Vazquez in violation of tile Act is not supported by the record. On the contrary,
the record is replete with credible evidence that Vazquez's membership and
activities in behalf of the Union was the sole reason for his discharge. In sup-
port of the contention that Vazquez was discharged because he asked for a salary
increase and gave as one of his arguments the fact that he could not live on
his salary, the respondent called as a witness, Harry F Besosa, at present a
Colonel in the United States Army and since 1009, counsel and resident vice-
president for various surety companies who write surety bonds covering bank
employees. After being qualified as an expert on the issuance and cancellation
of fidelity bonds, Besosa testified when and how those bonds are cancelled by
a surety company; the details of this testimony is not necessary to set forth here
because it is not relevant to the issues herein. On cross-examination, however,
Besosa was asked whether he had ever heard of any instance where an employee
was discharged because lie asked his employer for a wage increase and gave
as a reason the fact that lie could no longer live on the salary he was receiving,
Besosa answered as follows :
Oh, no, no. No, that may be very usual. If a man says, "I want a raise
because I cannot live on what I am eai ping", that is so when lie is not living
19 Also referred to in the record as Emma Marin.
20 The letters i ead as follows
Mr M MARTORDLL
Pies. Association Union Empleados de Bancos
c/o Credito p Ahorro Ponceno
San Juan , Puerto Rico
Slit. I shall appreciate that from this date you withdraw my name as an active
member of this association which you now preside
I desire to let you know that when making this determination I have done so in a
voluntary manner suitable to my best interests
21 Ahles personably paid the postage.
668 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on what he is earning , he may be in debt. When we want an advance we
make all kinds of requests and statements that, of course, are not prejudicial
to one's self.
The undersigned is convinced, and finds that Vazquez was discharged because he
was a member of and active in behalf of the Union and that the respondent's
contention that he was discharged because he admitted he could not live on the
salary he was earning was a pretext which the respondent seized upon to rid itself
of the organizer and the guiding spirit of the Union's organizational drive among
the respondent's employees.
The respondent also contended that it had engaged in no unfair labor practices
with respect to the preparation and circulation of the petition of August 23 and
the preparation and distribution of the letters of resignation, since the request
for them emanated from the employees.- However, the gist of the unfair labor
practices here is the manner in which the petition and the letters of resignation
were.prepared and circulated and the circumstances under which the employees
were requested to sign them ; that is, by persons of supervisory capacity or char-
acter. This is especially true since the petition and letters of resignation were
circulated with the approval and assistance of the respondent after receiving
advice from the Union that it had been designated the exclusive representative
of the employees and had requested that it be recognized as such. Such circum-
stances places the respondent in a position where it must strictly refrain from
any type of interference and adhere to a "hands off" attitude. The acts described
above were not indicative of such an attitude and it, therefore, is immaterial
whence came the impulse to prepare and circulate the petition and letters of
resignation.22
The undersigned finds upon the entire record in the case, that by making the
anti-union statements and engaging in anti-union activities, as found above,
including the preparation and circulation of the petition of August 23, and the
preparation and distribution of the letters of resignation, the respondent has inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
The undersigned further finds that the respondent, by discharging Luis Manuel
Vazquez, discriminated in regard to his hire and tenure of employment, thereby
discouraging membership in the Union, and interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
B. The refusal to bargain collectively
1. Appropriate unit
At the hearing, Board's counsel and the respondent's counsel stipulated, and the
undersigned finds , that all telephone operators, clerks, stationery clerks, stenog-
raphers, 'bookkeeping machine operators, tellers, porters, collectors, the man-
ager's junior secretary, mail clerks, night watchmen, secretaries, and cleaners,
excluding the manager's secretary, branch auditors, accountants, the head of the
collection department, the head of the credit department, the officers, the execu-
tives, and all other persons in a supervisory capacity, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act22 Board 's counsel would exclude from the unit found appropriate,
22 In Medo Photo Supply Corporation v. N. L. R. B, 321 U. S. 678 , 687, the Supreme
Court stated the employer "was not relieved from his obligations [ under the Act] because
the employees asked that they be disregarded
23 No evidence was introduced with respect to the unit . The agreed unit is substantially
the same as that alleged in the complaint . The undersigned finds no reason to disturb
the stipulation.
THE CHASE NATIONAL BANK OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK 669
and the respondent would include, Isabel Cordero. As found above, Cordero is
not a supervisory employee. Under these circumstances, the undersigned finds
that Cordero should be included in the unit found appropriate.
2 Representation by the Union of a majority in the appropriate unit
A list of persons, exclusive of the manager and the assistant manager, in the
respondent's employ on August 22 was prepared by the respondent and introduced
in evidence by Board's counsel. The list contains the names of 43 persons who
are included in the' unit hereinabove found appropriate .14 Vazquez's name does
not appear on the said list, although he should be in the unit. On behalf of the
Board there was offered and received in evidence the Union's clues receipt book.
This book shows that during July 1944, twenty-two employees in the appropriate
unit paid their June 1944 dues. Between August 1 and August 15, three additional
employees paid dues On August 7, 1914, employee Villahermosa signed a mem-
bership application winch expressly authorized the Union to represent him for the
purposes of collective bargaining
The undersigned has compared the names appearing in the dues receipt book
with the list prepared by the respondent and received in evidence as a Board
exhibit and finds that, as of August 22, 1944, twenty-five employees of the re-
spondent in the appropriate unit paid dues to the Union during the months of
July and August 1944. The name of Villahermosa also appears on the aforesaid
list. The undersigned accordingly finds that on August 22, 1944, and at all times
thereafter, the Union was the duly designated collective bargaining representa-
tive of a majority of the respondent's employees in the unit found appropriate.
Pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the Union was, therefore, the exclusive
representative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment, and other conditions
of employment.
3. The refusal to bargain
As found above, the Union by letter dated August 19, 1944, informed the re-
spondent that it had been designated the collective bargaining representative
by a majority of the respondent's employees and requested the respondent to
recognize it as such representative, and to fix a date for a conference to open
collective bargaining negotiations. Immediately thereafter the respondent em-
barked upon a campaign to dissipate the Union's majority. Thus, on August 23,
the respondent obtained the signatures of all the employees in the appropriate
unit, except two, to a petition which, in effect, was a repudiation of the designation
24 The list also contains the names of 7 persons whom the respondent ' s counsel and
Board ' s counsel stipulated should be excluded from the unit because of the supervisory or
confidential nature of their duties.
25 Vazquez testified , and the undersigned finds , that he collected the dues and gave to
each member a duplicate of the receipt which appears therein. He further testified, and
the undersigned finds, that the book correctly reflects the number of employees who paid
dues.
26 After the Union became affiliated with the C. G. T. it had some of the employees sign
membership applications . The applications also designated the Union as the collective
bai gaining representative of the signatories thereto . Seventeen employees who had
previously paid dues to the Union, signed membership applications The undenied credible
testimony shows that the Union did not insist that all those who had previously paid dues
sign membership applications because the Union considered the dues -paying members to be
members in good standing. The undenied credible evidence also shows that at the time
of the hearing the dues paying members considered themselves to be members in good
standing . After the membership applications had been checked by the respondent against
its records , its counsel stated that the respondent did not question the authenticity or the
genuineness of the signatures appearing on the applications.
670 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the Union as the collective bargaining representative of the employees On
August 24, the respondent prepared and distributed letters addressed to the
Union stating that the signers thereof wished to resign from the Union Fifteen
employees signed such letters, which letters were then mailed to the Union by
the respondent. After being advised by the Regional Director of the Board's
,San Juan Regional office that the Board was about to issue a complaint against
the respondent, in which the Board would allege, among other things, that the
respondent had refused to bargain collectively with the Union, and on the same
day (September 19) that the complaint herein was mailed' to the respondent,
the latter wrote the Union acknowledging receipt of the Union's letter of August
19 and requesting the Union to submit proof that a majority of the employees had
designated the Union as their representative for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
In its answer, and at the hearing, the respondent denied that the Union on
August 22, or at any time thereafter, represented a majority of the employees
in the appropriate unit and it argued that for that reason it has not been guilty
of violating the Act in not recognizing the Union as the exclusive collective
bargaining representative of its employees and with refusal to bargain collectively
with the Union. In support of its position, it points to the petition of August 23,
and the letters of resignation as evidence that the majority of the employees in
the appropriate unit had repudiated the Union. The respondent cannot excuse
its refusal to bargain on the basis of the alleged defections from the Union, even
assuming that a number sufficient to destroy the majority had repudiated the
Union on August 23 and 24, since these defections were induced by the respondent's
unlawful conduct. It follows, therefore, that the respondent's unfair labor prac-
tices cannot operate to destroy the exclusive representative status of the Union
previously established by the untrammeled will of the majority of the employees
in the appropriate unit "
.The respondent's contentions that its reply to the Union's letter of August 19
was timely and that it, in good faith. doubted that the Union represented a
majority of the respondent's employees and therefore it was exercising its legal
rights when it demanded that the Union submit proof that it represented the
majority of the employees are not supported by the record On the contrary, the'
record is clear that at no time did the respondent intend to bargain collectively
with the Union. Before the Union demanded recognition, the respondent in-
stituted a course of conduct designed to forestall the activities of the Union and
after the Union demanded recognition it attempted to destroy the Union's ma-
jority. The respondent, moreover, ignored the Union's letter demanding recog-
nition until it was advised that the Board was about to issue a complaint charging
the iespondent with refusing to bargain collectively with the Union
In view of the foregoing, and upon the entire record, the undersigned finds that
the respondent on August 22, 1944, and at all times thereafter, refused to bargain
collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in an
appropriate unit, and has thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in
connection with its operations as described in Section I above have a close, inti-
27 See lliedo Photo Supply Corporation v. N L. R. B., 321 U. S 678; N L. R. B v.
Bradford Dyeing Ass'n, 310 U S 818, 339-40; International Ass'n of Machinists v.
N. L R B, 311 U S 72, 82. of Brands Bros Co v. N. L R B., 321 U S 702, and National
Licoi we Co v N L R. B., 309 U: S. 350, 359.
THE CHASE NATIONAL BANK OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK 671
mate and substantial relation to trade, traffic and commerce within Puerto Rico
and between Puerto Rico and the Continental United States and foreign coun-
tries, 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 it will
be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain afhrmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act
Since it has been found that the respondent has refused to bargain collectively
with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate
unit , it will be recommended that the respondent, upon request, bargain collec-
tively with the Union.
Since it has been found that the respondent discharged Luis Manuel Vazquez
on August 15, 1944, and thereafter refused to reinstate him, for the reason that
he joined and assisted a labor organization and engaged in concerted activities
for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection,
it will be recommended that the respondent offer him inunediate and full rein-
statement to his former or substantially equivalent position.
It will be further recommended that the respondent make Vazquez whole for
any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination, by payment
to hi n of a sum of money equal to the amount he would normally have earned
as wages from the date of his discharge to the date of the offer of reinstatement,
less his net earnings 28 during such period, including the $100 which the respond-
ent gave Vazquez in lieu of notice of discharge.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case , the undersigned makes the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 Union de Empleados De Bancos De Puerto Rico, affiliated With Confedera-
cion General de Trabajores de Puerto Rico, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act
2. All telephone operators, clerks, stationery clerks, stenographers, bookkeep-
ing machine operators, tellers, porters, collectors, the manager's junior secretary,
mail clerks, night watchmen, secretaries, and cleaners, excluding the manager's
secretary, branch auditors, accountants, the head of the collection department,
the head of the credit department, the officers, the executives, and all other
persons in a supervisory capacity, constituted, and now constitute, a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
3 Union De Enipleados De B.uncos De Puerto Rico, affiliated with Confedera-
cion General de Trabajores de Puerto Rico, was on August 22, 1944, and at all
tiles thereafter has been, the exclusive representative of all the employees in
the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
28 By "net earnings " is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent, a hick vrould not have been incurred but foi his unlawful
discharge , and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere See Matter
of G'iossett Lumber Coin pain, and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N. L R B 440. Monies
received for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief
projects shall be considered as earnings . See Republic Steel Corporation v N. L. R B
311 U. S 7.
672 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. By refusing on August 22, 1944, and at all times thereafter to bargain col-
lectively with Union De Empleados De Bancos De Puerto Rico, affiliated with
Confederacion General de Trabajores de Puerto Rico as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, the respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (5) of the Act.
5 By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Luis
Manuel Vazquez, thereby discouraging membership in Union De Empleados De
Ilancos De Puerto Rico, affiliated with Confederacion General de Trabajores de
Puerto Rico, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
6. By interfering with, restraining and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law the under-
signed recommends that The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San
Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch, its officers, agents, successors and assigns shall:
1 Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Union De Empleados De Bancos De Puerto
Rico, affiliated with Confederacion General de Trabajores de Puerto Rico, or any
other labor organization of its employees by discharging or refusing to reinstate
any of its employees, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their
hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment;
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with Union De Empleados De Bancos De
Puerto Rico, affiliated with Confederacion General de Trabajores de Puerto Rico
.as the exclusive representative of all the telephone operators, clerks, stationery
clerks, stenographers, bookkeeping machine operators, tellers, porters, collectors,
the manager's junior secretary, mail clerks, night watchmen, secretai les, and
cleaners, excluding the manager's secretary, branch auditors, accountants, the
head of the collection department, the head of the credit department, the officers,
the executives, and all otlier persons in a supervisory capacity of the respondent;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to
join or assist Union De Empleados De Bancos De Puerto Rico, affiliated with
Confederacion General de Trabajores de Puerto Rico, or any other labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to
engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining, or other
mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effect-
uate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with Union Do Empleados De Bancos
De Puerto Rico, affiliated with Confederacion Geneial de Trabajores de Puerto
Rico as the exclusive representative of all telephone operators, clerks, stationery
clerks, stenographers, bookkeeping machine operators, tellers, porters, collectors,
the manager's junior secretary, mail clerks, night watchmen, secretaries, and
cleaners, excluding the manager's secretary, branch auditors, accountants, the
head of the collection department, the head of the credit department, the officers,
the executives, and all other persons in a supervisory capacity of the respondent ;
THE CHASE NATIONAL BANK OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK 673
(b) Offer to Luis Manuel Vazquez immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority and
other rights and privileges;
(c) Make whole Luis Manuel Vazquez for any loss of pay he may have suffered
by. reason of the respondent's discrimination in regard to his hire and tenure of
employment by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount which he
normally would have earned as wages during the period from the date of the
discrimination against him to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement,
less his net earnings during such period, including the $100 which the respondent
gave him in lieu of notice of discharge;
(d) Post immediately in places where the respondent usually posts notices
to its employees in its bank at San Juan, Puerto Rico, and maintain for a period
of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its
employees stating: (1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from
which it is recommended that it cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b) and
(c) of these recommendation ; (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative
action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a), (b) and (c) of these recommendations;
and (3) that the respondent's employees are free to remain or become members
of Union De Empleados De Bancos De Puerto Rico, affiliated with Confederacion
,General de Trabajores de Puerto Rico and that the respondent will not dis-
criminate against any employee because of his membership or activity on behalf
of that organization or any other labor organization;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-fourth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report,
-what steps the respondent has taken *o comply herewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said Regional Di-
rector in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the
,National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take
the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, effective November 26,
1943, any party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen (15) days from the
date of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to
Section 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations file with the Board, Roch-
ambeau Building, Washington, D C, an original and four copies of a statement
in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any
other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or
objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a
brief in support thereof Immediately upon the filing of such statement of
,exceptions and/or brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall
serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the
Regional Director. As further provided in said Section 33, should any party
,desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be
made in writing within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring
the case to the Board.
HOWARD MYERS,
Trial Examiner.
Dated November 29, 1944.