Union de Tronquistas de Puerto RicoDownload PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMay 29, 1974210 N.L.R.B. 1040 (N.L.R.B. 1974) Copy Citation 1040 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Union de Tronquistas de Puerto Rico, Local 901, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and F. F. Instrument Corporation . Cases 24-CC-161 and 24-CB-868 May 29, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO On January 22, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Paul L. Harper issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Charging Party filed exceptions and a supporting brief solely addressed to the Order and Remedy portions of that Decision. 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. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge. As more fully described in his Decision, the Administrative Law Judge found that the Respon- dent engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) during the course of its picketing of premises shared by Dura Form Corporation, with whom it had a primary dispute, and F. F. Instrument Corporation, a neutral employ- er, who is the Charging Party herein.' Dura Form subleases a portion of the second floor of its building in Caguas, Puerto Rico, to F. F. Instrument. While both F. F. Instrument and Dura Form have separate shipping docks and entrances into the building, they share the single entrance through a wire cyclone fence that encircles the building and adjoining parking areas. An access road from the main highway leads to this entrance. The Administrative Law Judge specifically found that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) and 8(b)(1)(A) when its agents used threats of violence in an attempt to induce employees of F. F. Instrument to join the strike with employees of Dura Form and to refuse to perform services for F. F. Instrument. The Respon- dent also was found by him to have violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) and 8(b)(1)(A) when its agents threat- ened employees of two suppliers of F. F. Instrument with violence if they did not honor the strike picket i Although the Respondent's picketing was aimed at Dura Form, it made no attempt to disclose that its dispute was only with Dura Form and not F F Instrument 2 Union de Tronquistas de Puerto Rico, Local 901 (Lock Joint Pipe & Co of Puerto Rico), 202 NLRB No 43; Union de Tronquistas de Puerto Rico, Local 901 (Hotel La Concha), 193 NLRB 591 (enfd. C.A 1, 1972), Union de line. Finally, he found that agents of Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) when they threatened F. F. Instrument's general manager that nobody would be allowed in or out of the plant, that the strike was going to be a long one with the Union completely shutting down the facility, and that F. F. Instrument should break its lease with Dura Form and move its equipment out of the building and away from the area. No exceptions were filed to any of these findings. The Administrative Law Judge's recommended Order required the Respondent to cease and desist from engaging in such unlawful conduct and to post a notice in its offices stating that it will not engage in such conduct in the future. In its exceptions thereto, the Charging Party contends that the recommended Order is inadequate to the task of expunging the effects of the aforesaid unfair labor practices found to have been committed by Respondent. It argues that Respondent's past proclivity to disregard em- ployee rights in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) by resorting to violence and threats of violence, as found in prior Board cases,2 along with the conse- quent ineffectiveness of our standard remedies upon the Respondent, requires the imposition of extraordi- nary remedies. First, the Charging Party urges that the Respon- dent should be required to reimburse the Board and itself for the expenses incurred in investigation, preparation, presentation, and conduct of this case in order to discourage further 8(b)(1)(A) violations on the part of the Respondent. We have only awarded such cost reimbursement remedy in limited circum- stances where frivolous defenses were raised by a litigious Respondent strictly to delay or avoid its obligations under the Act. See, e.g., Tiidee Products, Inc., 194 NLRB 1234. For the following reasons, we are not willing to find that Respondent's contesting this matter through to a decision of an Administra- tive Law Judge should be construed as wholly frivolous. In the instant case, the Respondent posted identi- cal affirmative defenses to the 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(4) allegations in the complaint, arguing that F. F. Instrument was an "ally" of Dura Form in that F. F. Instrument was producing goods and services for Dura Form and its customers. The Administrative Law Judge properly granted the General Counsel's and Charging Party's motions to strike this defense as to the 8(b)(1)(A) allegations since the ally doctrine has no relevance to issues involving 8(b)(1)(A) Tronquistas de Puerto Rico, Local 901 ( Bourne Puerto Rico, Inc ), Case 24-CB-713 (TXD-4O- 70 adopted by Board Order), Union de Tronquislas de Puerto Rico, Local 901 (Barceloneta Shoe Corp), Case 24-CB-702 (TXD-32-70 adopted by Board Order ); Union de Tronquistas de Puerto Rico, Local 901 (Envelopes, Inc), Case 24-CBi62 (TXD-225-69 adopted by Board Order) 210 NLRB No. 153 UNION DE TRONQUISTAS DE PUERTO RICO 1041 conduct. However, Respondent's ally defense, if it had been proven, might well have furnished a valid defense to the 8(b)(4) allegations,3 and therefore we are unwilling to categorize it as a total sham. Nonetheless, Respondent failed to introduce any evidence or call any witnesses in support of its defense that F. F. Instrument was an ally of Dura Form, and the record establishes the contrary in that F. F. Instrument was but one of the suppliers of machine toolings and other related parts necessary for Dura Form's manufacture of plastic molded components. Thus, in our view, any further litigation in this case would constitute an abuse of the processes of the Board and the courts. Consequently, in the event the Respondent either seeks judicial review of our Order herein or disregards our Order, necessitating the General Counsel to seek judicial enforcement, we believe that the policies of the Act will be best effectuated by the General Counsel promptly proceeding on our behalf to seek appropri- ate relief under Section 10(e) of the Act as well as Rule 38, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, for reimbursement of the expenses of such subsequent proceedings. See, e .g., John Singer, Inc., 197 NLRB 88. The Charging Party also contends that the Admin- istrative Law Judge's Order requiring the posting of a notice by the Respondent Union is inadequate in two respects. First, it requests that the notice should be phrased in "extremely blunt language" which, it argues , would be more meaningful to the average factory worker. We are not persuaded, and do not find that the language and meaning of our attached notice,4 which will be posted both in English and Spanish, will be unclear or unintelligible to the employees. Secondly, the Charging Party urges that copies of the notice should be mailed to all of its employees rather than merely being posted at Respondent Union's office and the Charging Party's factory if it is willing. We find merit in this latter suggestion . As a consequence of the Respondent's continuing disregard of employee rights we shall again require the Respondent to mail signed copies of the notice to all employees of the Charging Party as was done in Union de Tronquistas de Puerto Rico, Local 901 (Lock Joint Pipe & Co. of Puerto Rico), 202 NLRB No. 43, and Union de Tronquistas de Puerto Rico, Local 901 (Hotel La Concha), 193 NLRB 591.5 The Charging Party further argues that the Board 3 Cf. N L. R B v Business Machine and Office Mechanics Appliance Conference Board Local 459 (Royal Typewriter Co), 228 F 2d 553 (C A. 2) 4 We have substituted our notice for that proposed by the Administrative Law Judge because we have included a statement that Respondent will not use threats to coerce and restrain employees in violation of Sec. 8(b)(1)(A) S The Administrative Law Judge properly refused to allow litigation with respect to whether Respondent also violated Sec 8(b)(l)(A) by allegedly tearing down a Board notice postponing hearing in Case 244RC-5167 should withdraw the use of its procedures from the Respondent Union "until such time as the union by positive action indicates its agreement to cease engaging in" willful violation of Board orders and Section 8(b)(1)(A). Specifically, the Charging Party requests the Board to dismiss the Respondent's petition in Case 24-RC-5167 in which the Respon- dent seeks to represent the Charging Party's employ- ees. In our view, adoption of this extreme remedy under these circumstances would not be appropriate to achieve the purely remedial objectives of the Act. See, e.g., Russell Motors, Inc., 198 NLRB No. 58; Raymond Buick, Inc., 173 NLRB 1292. Rather, the rights of these employees will be sufficiently safe- guarded by conducting a secret ballot election after the Respondent has complied with our Order and the effects of its unfair labor practices have dissipated. Finally, the Charging Party asks us to reconsider our decision in Lock Joint, supra, in which we declined to reimburse employees for time lost from work as a result of the Respondent's unfair labor practices. We find it unnecessary to pass on this question since there is no evidence that any employ- ees lost worktime or wages as a consequence of the Respondent's unfair labor practices. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Union de Tronquistas de Puerto Rico, Local 901, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Inducing or encouraging, by picketing or any other means, individuals employed by F. F. Instru- ment Corporation, Puerto Rico Automatics, Inc., Edwin V. Goss, Inc., or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of their employment to perform services for their respective employers, where an object thereof is to force or require Dura Form, Inc., Puerto Rico Automatics, Inc., and Edwin V. Goss, Inc., to cease doing business with F. F. Instrument Corporation. (b) Threating, coercing, or restraining F. F. Instrument Corporation where an object thereof is to because this incident was beyond the scope of the General Counsel's complaint Nevertheless, the Charging Party argues that evidence of this incident should have been admitted because it also relates to the remedy and tends to show the inadequacy of merely requiring the Respondent to post a notice We find it unnecessary to decide whether the Administrative Law Judge erred in rejecting this evidence for that limited purpose in view of our determination that all employees should receive a copy of the notice by mail 1042 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD force or require F. F. Instrument Corporation to cease doing business with Dura Form, Inc. (c) Restraining or coercing employees of F. F. Instrument Corporation, Puerto Rico Automatics, Inc., Edwin V. Goss, Inc., or the employees of any other employer in Puerto Rico, particularly by use of threats of force, violence, or property damage, from engaging in their employment. (d) Restraining or coercing employees in their exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its business office at Calle del Parque 352, Santurce, Puerto Rico 00908, copies in English and Spanish of the attached notice marked "Appen- dix."6 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 24, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereaft- er, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members of the Union are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Deliver to the Regional Director of Region 24, sufficient signed copies of said notice in English and Spanish for posting by F. F. Instrument Corporation at all locations where notices to employees of said Company are customarily posted, if it is willing to post them. (c) Mail copies of said signed notice in English and Spanish to each employee of F. F. Instrument Corporation. (d) Notify the Regional Director of Region 24, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not found herein. 6 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." any individual employed by F. F. Instrument Corporation, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of employment to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require F. F. Instrument Corporation, or any other persons, to cease doing business with Dura Form, Inc., Puerto Rico Automatics, Inc., or Edwin V. Goss, Inc. WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain, F. F. Instrument Corporation where an object thereof is to force or require F. F. Instrument Corpora- tion to cease doing business with Dura Form, Inc. WE WILL NOT use threats of force, violence, or property damage to restrain or coerce employees of F. F. Instrument Corporation, Puerto Rico Automatics, Inc., Edwin V. Goss, Inc., or employ- ees of any other employer in Puerto Rico, from engaging in their employment. WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act. UNION DE TRONQUISTAS DE PUERTO Rico, LOCAL 901, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. 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. Any questions concerning this notice or compli- ance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Pan Am Building, Seventh Floor, P.O. Box U U, 255 Ponce De Leon Avenue, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 00919, Telephone 622-0247. APPENDIX NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT, nor will our officers , business representatives , business agents , or anyone acting on our behalf , engage in or induce , or encourage DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE PAUL L. HARPER, Administrative Law Judge: Upon a charge filed by F. F. Instrument Corporation (F. F. Instrument) in Case 24-CC-161, the General Counsel issued a complaint on September 25, 1973, alleging violations of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(ii)(B) of the Act. Upon a charge filed by F. F. Instrument in Case 24-CB-868, the General Counsel issued a complaint on October 2, 1973, UNION DE TRONQUISTAS DE PUERTO RICO 1043 alleging violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. On October 2 , 1973, an order consolidating cases was issued. Respondent filed answers in each respective case admitting some of the allegations of the complaint but denying the commission of any unfair labor practices . A hearing was held before me in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on November 6, 1973. At the trial, full opportunity was afforded to all parties to introduce relevant evidence , to examine and cross-examine witnesses , to argue orally on the record, and to submit briefs. Upon the entire record in the case, including my observation of the demeanor of witnesses , I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS INVOLVED F. F. Instrument has at all times material to the issues in this case maintained a place of business at Km. 29.4, Route No . 1, in the city of Caguas , Commonwealth of Puerto Rico , where it was engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of precision instruments, metal stampings , toolings , and related products. Dura Form, Inc. (Dura Form), has at all times material maintained a place of business at Km . 29.4, Route No. 1, in the City of Caguas , Puerto Rico , where it has been engaged in the manufacture , sale, and distribution of plastic molded components and related products. Puerto Rico Automatics , Inc. (Automatics) has at all times material maintained a place of business in the City of Guaynabo, Puerto Rico , where it has been engaged in the manufacture , sale, and distribution of steel products and related products. Edwin V . Goss, Inc. (Goss), has at all times material maintained a place of business in the City of Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico , where it has been engaged in providing rental and transport of heavy equipment services. During the past year the above named employers, in the course and conduct of their respective businesses, pur- chased and sold goods and services valued in excess of $50,000 to and from their respective places of business in Puerto Rico directly to and from States in the continental United States . Respondent admits and I find that the above-named Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. RESPONDENT LABOR ORGANIZATION Union De Tronquistas De Puerto Rico, Local 901, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Setting The complaint alleges and the Respondent admits in its answers , as amended at the hearing, that, "On or about June 12 , 1973, the Respondent Union , in furtherance of its contract demands upon Dura Form . . . called a strike by Dura Form employees , and authorized and established a picket line , at the common premises of Dura Form and F. F. Instrument at Km . 29.4, Route 1, Caguas, Puerto Rico." It is thus clear from the pleadings , the stipulations of the parties at the hearing , and the evidence that the primary employer with whom the Respondent Union had a dispute was Dura Form . Neutral employers involved included F. F. Instrument , Automatics and Goss. F. F. Instrument and Dura Form jointly occupy a two- story building with some 65,000 square feet of space, situated on a 4-acre lot enclosed by a wire cyclone fence. For all practical purposes there is only one entrance to these premises although the building itself provides separate entrances for the F . F. Instrument and Dura Form employees , respectively . An access road runs from the main highway to the main entrance of the premises. About 75 percent of the building is occupied by Dura Form 's approximately 100 to 125 employees . The remain- ing 25 percent, part of the second story , is occupied by approximately 20 employees of F. F . Instrument. The premises are leased from the Puerto Rican Com- monwealth by Dura Form and that portion of the premises occupied by F. F. Instrument are subleased to it by Dura Form . Other than physical occupancy of the premises, and a very small amount of business done between the two Companies , apparently at arms length , there is no relationship between the two enterprises . The employees are engaged in substantially separate kinds of work, there is no interchange of employees or supervision between the two Companies , there are separate communications sys- tems , administrative and clerical offices , loading areas, etc. A cafeteria used by employees of both Companies is located on the second story and is operated by an outside business concern. Pertinent Facts As noted above the strike and picketing began June 12, 1973, and continued through June 14, 1973. The issues presented are as follows: 1. Whether Respondent's picketing of Dura Form at the common situs occupied by Dura Form and F. F. Instrument, and specific conduct of its agents at or near the picketing , constituted unlawful inducement of employ- ees of neutral employers within the proscription of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act. 2. Whether Respondent , by the conduct of its agents threatened , restrained , or coerced F. F. Instrument and other neutral employers with an object of forcing or requiring F. F. Instrument to cease doing business with Dura Form or other employers in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. 3. Whether Respondent , by the conduct of its agents, restrained or coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Gordon A. Pope , president and general manager of F. F. 1044 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Instrument, testified that on June 12, 1973, the first day of the strike, he approached the pickets at the main entrance and spoke to Respondent's agents Gotay and Guzman.' Pope testified that he asked the union agents ". . . what is this sign doing over here on the main gate saying strike, we [F. F. Instrument] are not on strike." He further testified that he explained in detail the relationship between F. F. Instrument and Dura Form. It is obvious of course that most if not all the employees on strike were aware of this relationship. Pope testified that Guzman told him that F. F. Instrument employees could come into the plant but that he would not be responsible nor would the Union be responsible for anything that happened to them outside of the plant. He further testified that Gotay told him ". . . that under no circumstances would trucks be allowed in because there would be no way for him to tell whether they were delivering to us or Dura Form and under absolutely no condition could any commercial vehicles enter this property." 2 Pope approached the picket line a second time later on in the afternoon. An employee of F. F. Instrument had told him that Union Agent Guzman wanted to speak to him. Pope testified that during this second conversation with Guzman he, Guzman, told him that ". . . because the plant was being completely shut down that nobody would be allowed in or out of the plant; no vehicle, no personnel, nothing." Pope asked Guzman why the Union was taking this position and Guzman replied that Dura Form's Vice President Rodriguez had made the statement that ". . . the strike could be a long strike, as much as a year, so that therefore the Union was going to shut the place down completely." Guzman is alleged to have further stated that "... we could not have any deliveries but if I would make an arrangement for Guzman to speak to Rodriguez the following morning . . . that he would allow my employees to come in the morning, being Wednesday morning." It was either on this occasion or a later occasion that Guzman is alleged to have stated that F. F. Instrument ". . . should break the lease [with Dura Form] and move [its] equipment out of the building and get away from this area." Pope testified that on the next day, June 13, early in the morning when he arrived at the plant he noticed some 8 or 10 cars occupied by employees of F. F. Instrument being stopped at the main entrance by the pickets. He further testified that the cars were stopped only temporarily and that all were permitted to come into the plant and that all employees of F. F. Instrument worked that day as well as throughout the 3-day strike. While each car was stopped temporarily there were certain statements made to them by the pickets and union agents which will be discussed hereinafter. According to Pope a delivery of some machine parts from Puerto Rico Automatics was scheduled to have been made on June 12 or June 13, but that the pickets refused to allow the delivery to be made. The driver for Automatics, Eligio Rios, testified that he arrived at the situs with a load for "some parts" to be delivered to F. F. Instrument about 8:30 on the morning of June 14. His first encounter was with the police who told him there was a strike in progress and suggested ". . . the best thing I could do was turn around." A few moments later a group of men approached him and asked him to "please cooperate." He testified there were no picket signs within view. He then left, made another delivery elsewhere, and returned a second time about 10:30 a.m. Again "The boys came down off the hill again and asked me `didn't we tell you that there was a strike?' " Rios replied he came back "to see if it had ended." The pickets told him if he entered the premises he would be a "strikebreaker." On this second occasion Rios testified he informed the pickets his delivery was destined to be made to F. F . Instrument. The pickets again informed him "They were on strike" but did not identify the company they were striking. Goss was scheduled to make a delivery of heavy equipment to F. F. Instrument on June 13, the second day of the strike. The driver, Ferdinand Rivera, was stopped by a group of pickets approximately 30 yards from the main entrance. When Pope became aware of the attempted delivery he approached Rivera and urged him to make the delivery. Rivera stated to Pope ". . . that the picket line had stopped him and wouldn't allow him to pass." There were "probably fifty" pickets nearby, according to Pope. Rivera testified regarding this event as follows: He arrived at the situs about 9:30 to 10 a.m.; noticed immediately that a strike was in progress; did not see any picket signs; Pope approached him and some of the strikers said ". . . that I couldn't pass by because they were on strike"; that "... if I broke the picket line, they couldn't assure me of any security." Rivera was specifically questioned on the point of whether he told the strikers the identity of the Company to which the delivery was to be made. He testified he told the strikers ". . . the machine I was delivering that day belongs to F. F . Instrument," and the strikers replied ". . . that they were on strike and they couldn't assure me of any safety at all, you know, anything that would happen." Rivera then communicated by twc way radio with his company's management advising them of the situation. According to Rivera he was directed by his supervisor to stand by or wait to see what developed. He had been told by some of the strikers the strike would be over about 1:30 p.m. He waited until 2:30 or 3 p.m. and left without making the delivery. The next day, after the strike had ended, he made the delivery. Alejo Santos, an employee of F. F. Instrument, testified that on June 12, the first day of the Dura Form strike, as he was attempting to leave the premises through the common entrance on his way to lunch he was stopped (the plant cafeteria was closed) by Union Agent Gotay. He testified that Gotay told him not to go through the gate. Santos replied that he was on his way out for lunch. Gotay responded "yes, if you go out that gate, you're going to take your clothes because you're not going to be able to come back," "... to go back and tell my fellow companions that that day nor the next day should they try to go out and he also told me that if I should go out and try I The parties stipulated at the hearing that Gotay was an agent of the Respondent Respondent's counsel stipulated only that Guzman was a "delegate " I find both to be agents of the Respondent Guzman is deceased 2 Gotay did not testify at the hearing. UNION DE TRONQUISTAS DE PUERTO RICO 1045 to come back in, that I would get a beating ." Santos testified he told Gotay at the outset that he didn't work for Dura Form , that he was an employee of F. F. Instrument. Santos and his fellow workers remained within the enclosed premises until quitting time. Felipe Nievos Mourey, an employee of F. F. Instrument, testified concerning a conversation with Union Agent Guzman as follows : That on coming to work in his car on June 13, the second day of the strike , he was stopped at the main entrance by a group of Dura Form strikers; Union Agent Guzman approached and told him he "... could go in and work provided that I left the car outside the plant,"-". .. that if I were to take the car into the plant I had no guarantee in the afternoon when I came out." Pedro Ramirey Almodovar , another employee of F. F. Instrument , testified about a conversation with Union Agent Guzman on June 13 as follows : He arrived in his car at the main entrance at the beginning of the workday; Guzman "indicated" he should stop and made the statement to him that ". . . he had made some sort of agreement with Mr. Pope that nothing would happen to us within the plant grounds but he could not guarantee to me that nothing would happen on the highway." CONCLUDING FINDINGS The evidence establishes, and I find, that F. F. Instrument and Dura Form are two separate enterprises and at all times material hereto occupied a common situs in the performance of their respective manufacturing operations. There can be no question under the factual circum- stances of this case that the Union's primary dispute was at all material times with Dura Form. Thus Dura Form is the primary employer in this situation and F. F. Instrument, Automatics, and Goss are secondary or neutral employers. It is also clear from the evidence , and in fact the admissions contained in Respondent' s answers, as amend- ed at the hearing, to the complaints herein, that the Respondent Union on June 12, 1973, " in furtherance of its contract demands upon Dura Form called a strike by Dura Form employees, and authorized and established a picket line, and thereafter continued to maintain said picket line at the common premises of Dura Form and F. F. Instrument at Km. 29.4, Route No. 4, Caguas, Puerto Rico." The strike and picketing continued from June 12 through 14, 1973. This activity ended when a bargaining contract was executed between Respondent Union and Dura Form late in the day on June 14. It is thus clear that Respondent's primary object of the strike and picketing was to obtain a bargaining agreement with Dura Form. This finding however does not preclude, as I do for reasons set forth below, a finding that Respondent's strike and picketing, in the context of all the factual circumstances herein, had as an object the forcing or requiring F. F. Instrument to cease doing business with Dura Form, Automatics , and Goss, Whenever , as here, common situs picketing is involved the Board has developed certain criteria governing the conduct of a union which has authorized and established such picketing. One such criterion is: ... that the picketing clearly disclose that the dispute was only with the primary employer.3 Of the seven witnesses who testified at this hearing, only F. F. Instrument's general manager, Pope, testified, somewhat indefinitely, that there may have been placards at the scene of the picketing. I believe and find that he was mistaken in this and credit the testimony of the other witnesses that no placards, as such , were utilized by the picketing Dura Form employees . Instead there was only the word "Huelga" (Spanish word for strike ) written across the entrance sign at the main gate and similar writing on nearby trees and on the ground near the entrance. I can find nothing in the law which requires picket signs to take on any particular form or to prefer one form over any other. It is clear from the testimony of all the witnesses, and I find , that the picket signs did not identify the company, or even the Respondent Union for that matter, between whom the dispute existed. As noted above, three employees of F. F. Instrument, testified regarding incidents occurring at or near the picket line on June 12 or 13. In each instance an agent of the Respondent Union was involved . Thus employee Santos testified he was stopped at the picket line on June 12 and told by Union Agent Gotay that if he left the premises for lunch he would not "be able to come back, . . . and that if he did $o out and try to come back that he would "get a beating.' I find such conduct to constitute inducement of an employee of a neutral employer to either join the strike in progress or to engage in a refusal in the course of his employment to perform services in violation of Section 8(b)(4XiXB) of the Act. I further find that such conduct restrained and coerced employee Santos in the exercise of his statutory rights and thereby violated Section 8(bXl)(A) of the Act. A second employee of F. F. Instrument, Felipe Nievas Moviez , testified he too was stopped at the picket line. This occurred on June 13. Again a union agent , Guzman, told him if he took his car into the parking lot inside the main gate of the plant he "had no guarantee in the afternoon when I came out." I find this conduct to constitute unlawful inducement in violation of Section 8 (b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act, as well as restraint and coercion in violation of Section 8(bX1XA) of the Act. A third employee of F. F. Instrument, Pedro Ramivez Almodovar, testified that on June 13 he was stopped at the main entrance by Union Agent Guzman, in the presence of a number of striking employees , and told that nothing would happen to him "within the plant rounds" but that "he could not guarantee to me that nothing would happen on the highway." I find this to be unlawful inducement in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act and also restraint and coercion in violation of Section 8(bXIXA) of the Act. Automatics driver Rios testified that on June 14 a group of strikers approached him while he was attempting to make a delivery to, F. F. Instrument and asked him to 3 Sailors ' Union of the Pacific (Moore Dry Dock Co.), 92 NLRB 547, 549. 1046 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD "please cooperate ." He left but returned a second time when the strikers stated to him "didn 't we tell you that there was a strike ." On this second occasion Rios replied "I came to see if it had ended ." Rios estimated there were eight or nine strikers but could not identify any agents of the Union among the group. Nevertheless he told the group he was attempting to make a delivery to F. F. Instrument and the strikers replied that "they were on strike and that if I entered I'd be a strikebreaker." It seems to me on this second occasion , after Rios advised the strikers the name of the neutral employer for whom delivery was to be made , it was incumbent upon them to identify the employer they were striking. I fully credit Rios' uncontradicted testimony and find that by such conduct Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(iXB) of the Act. Based on the undenied testimony of Goss' driver Rivera, which I fully credit, I find that Respondent, by stopping him at the picket line , while attempting to make a delivery of equipment to F. F. Instrument and making such statements that if he "broke the picket line" they "couldn't assure" him "of any security"-"of any safety at all," unlawfully induced Rivera to honor the picket line in violation of Section 8(b)(4XiXB) of the Act. I further find that such conduct threatened , restrained , and coerced this employee in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act in violation of Section 8(bXl)(A) of the Act. The inducement of Automatics and Goss employees to refuse to perform their normal duties in connection with deliveries to F. F. Instrument , an innocent neutral employer , discloses that at least an object of Respondent was the enmeshment of neutral employers.4 Undenied testimony in the record, which I fully credit, establishes that Respondent , through its Agents Guzman and Gotay, by conduct discussed in detail above, including threatening F. F. Instrument 's general manager, Pope, thereby engaged in unlawful restraint and coercion with at least an object of forcing or requiring F. F. Instrument to cease doing business with Dura Form. Accordingly, I find that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(b)(4)(iiXB) of the Act. In determining the responsibility of a union for the conduct of pickets the Board has long applied the ordinary law of agency. A principal may be responsible for the act of his agent within the scope of the agent's general authority even though the principal has not specifically authorized the act in question . It is enough if the principal empowered the agent to represent him in the general area within which the agent acted. The Union in the subject case admittedly authorized the Dura Form strike and established the picketing at and near the main entrance of the common premises occupied by Dura Form and F. F. Instrument . As described elsewhere admitted agents of Respondent, Guzman and Gotay, stopped practically all F. F. Instrument employees entering and leaving the premises during the strike and as the credible evidence reveals engaged in acts of unlawful inducement at and near the scene of picketing in the presence of striking Dura Form employees and others . Thus the conduct of picketing Dura Form employees in stopping employees of neutral employ- ers attempting to make deliveries and inducing them to honor the picket line was merely a continuation of the same conduct engaged in by known and admitted agents of Respondent.5 Although not alleged in the complaint and vigorously opposed by Counsel for the General Counsel, I permitted the Charging Party herein to present an offer of proof, in question and answer form, concerning an incident occur- ring on September 14, 1973. This incident involved Teamsters Agents Guzman and Rodriquez removing a notice (order Postponing Hearing in Case 24-RC-5167) from the bulletin board of F. F. Instrument Corporation .6 The Charging Party contends that this action was taken in violation of company rules and in the presence of many of its employees and this was in violation of Section 8(b)(IXA) of the Act. As pointed out by Counsel for the General Counsel the charge in Case 24-CB-868 contained an allegation concerning this incident; the Regional Director for Region 24 declined to include such an allegation in the subject complaint; the Regional Director's action was sustained by the General Counsel on the appeal of the Charging Party. Counsel for the Charging Party admitted on the record that this matter , at the time of the hearing , was pending before the General Counsel on his motion for reconsidera- tion. In view of these circumstances I sustained the objection of General Counsel and rejected the offer of proof . Upon full consideration of the arguments contained in Charging Party's brief I now reaffirm this ruling. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent, Union De Tronquistas De Puerto Rico, Local 901, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America , is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. F. F. Instrument, Dura Form, Automatics, and Goss are employers within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and are engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3. By the conduct set forth above, Respondent has induced and encouraged employees of neutral employers to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of their employment to perform services , with an object of forcing or requiring F. F. Instrument to cease doing business with Dura Form, Automatics, and Goss, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(bX4Xi)(B) of the Act. 4. Respondent, by the conduct set forth above has threatened , restrained , and coerced F. F. Instrument with an object of forcing or requiring F. F. Instrument to cease doing business with Dura Form, and other neutral employers in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. 5. Respondent, by the conduct set forth above, has restrained and coerced employees of neutral employers in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the I See Polly Electric Company , 175 NLRB 507, 510; also Carpenters 6 The representation hearing in Case 24-RC-5167 had been ordered Local Union No. 944, 159 NLRB 563, 565 . postponed indefinitely "due to the pendency of unfair labor practice charge 5 See Sunset Line and 7Wine Company, 79 NLRB 1487, 1507. Case 24-CC-161" UNION DE TRONQUISTAS DE PUERTO RICO 1047 Act, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 7. Respondent has not engaged in any other unfair labor practices not specifically found herein. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(ii)(B) and 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act , I will recom- mend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. At the hearing , and more specifically in his brief , counsel for Charging Party urges that Respondent 's "proclivity to engage in unlawful picket line violence and threats of violence" and numerous Board and court decisions finding Respondent guilty of such conduct , requires extraordinary remedial measures in the subject case . He urges that the Notice to Members should include ( 1) the Notice language should "be extremely blunt language" and contain admis- sions of unlawful conduct ; (2) provision that Respondent's agents be "required to read the Notice to employees of F. F. at the company 's premises"; (3) requirement that Respondent "provide F. F. with sufficient copies of the Notice with original signatures thereon to mail to all the employees of F. F."; (4) provision that the Board withdraw the use of its procedures from Respondent "at least with respect to the instant employees"; and the petition in Case 24-RC-5167 to be dismissed ; (5) provision that Respon- dent "reimburse the NLRB and the Charging Party for their expenses incurred in the investigation , preparation, presentation , and conduct of these cases" ; and (6) provision in the Notice for backpay "to employees who did not work as a result of the unfair labor practices " thereby requesting the Board to reconsider its prior refusal to provide such a remedy in Lock Joint Pipe & Co., 202 NLRB 399. After full consideration of the Charging Party's argu- ments for the necessity of such an extraordinary remedy I remain unconvinced that the violative conduct found herein is of such pervasive proportions to warrant such provisions in the Notice . I believe and find that the record evidence supports the findings and conclusions set forth herein and that the purposes and policies of the Act will be appropriately effectuated by the remedy provided in the recommended Order. [Recommended Order omitted from publication.] Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation