Union De Tronquistas De Puerto Rico, Local 901

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsFeb 26, 1979

240 N.L.R.B. 925 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

UNION DE TRONQUISTAS DE PUERTO RICO, LOCAL 901 925 Union de Tronquistas de Puerto Rico, Local 901, afili- ada a la International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer- ica and Jaime Andino d/b/a Jaime Andino Truck- ing. Case 24-CC 212 February 26, 1979 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS J NKINS AND MURPHY On October 18, 1978, Administrative Law Judge Thomas D. Johnston issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge only to the extent consistent herewith. The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(A) of the Act by demand- ing that Jaime Andino Trucking sign a "stipulation" which would bind it to a collective-bargaining agree- ment between Respondent and the Hermandad de Camioneros del Norte, a multiemployer association, and require it to become a member of the Herman- dad. The Administrative Law Judge found that the Hermandad had relinquished its authority to repre- sent Andino in contract negotiations with Respon- dent and that Andino was therefore no longer a member of the Hermandad or bound by the labor agreement between Respondent and the Hermandad. Accordingly, he concluded that Respondent's efforts to have Andino sign the stipulation and join the Her- mandad were unlawful. We disagree with the Administrative Law Judge's finding that Andino was not a member of the Her- mandad when the association and Respondent exe- cuted a contract on April I, 1975. The evidence re- veals that Andino joined the Hermandad in December 1969 and signed an oath of allegiance au- thorizing the association to negotiate and execute collective-bargaining agreements on its behalf. Al- though Andino ceased paying dues in 1971 and stopped attending meetings in 1974, it never notified the Hermandad or Respondent that it intended to withdraw from the association or otherwise intended to withdraw from multiemployer bargaining. In late 240 NLRB No. 141 1974 the Hermandad and three other multiemployer associations formed the Federacion de Camioneros de Puerto Rico for the purpose of negotiating a labor agreement with Respondent. The Federacion did not constitute a new multiemployer unit, however. but merely served as a bargaining committee for the four associations. The fact that a number of companies signed authorization forms for the Federacion did not result in the dissolution of the Hermandad. To the contrary, when the negotiations between the Fed- eracion and Respondent failed to produce an agree- ment, the Hermandad's membership voted to remove the Federacion as its negotiator and selected a new bargaining committee. On April 1, 1975, Respondent and the Hermandad signed an agreement effective from January 1, 1975, to December 31, 1977. The contract included an ap- pendix which, based on the oaths of allegiance exe- cuted when the companies joined the Hermandad, listed Andino as a member of the association. Since Andino failed to give any notice of its desire to with- draw from the association, we find it remained a member and was bound by the 1975 labor agree- ment. We also find that Andino was bound by the stipulation signed by the Hermandad and Respon- dent on December 16. 1977. which extended the col- lective-bargaining agreement for I year. Consequent- ly, we conclude that Respondent's attempts to have Andino sign a copy of the stipulation did not violate Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(A) of the Act. We shall dis- miss the complaint in its entirety. AMENDED CONCIt SIONS OF LAw Substitute the following for paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Administrative Law Judge's Conclusions of Law: "3. Respondent Union de Tronquistas de Puerto Rico, Local 901, afiliada a la International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, did not engage in unfair labor practices in violation of the Act." ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board hereby orders that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE THOMAS D JoHnstoN. Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard before me at Hato Rey, Puerto Rico, on March 13 through 15, 1978, pursuant to a charge filed on 926 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD December 28, 1977, by Jaime Andino,' d/b/a Jaime Andi- no Andino Trucking (herein referred to as the Company), and a complaint issued on January 27, 1978. The complaint alleges that the Union de Tronquistas de Puerto Rico, Local 901, afiliada a la International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (herein referred to as Respondent), violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(A) of the National La- bor Relations Act, as amended (herein referred to as the Act), by demanding that the Company enter into a stipula- tion extending and modifying a collective-bargaining agreement between Respondent and the Hermandad de Camioneros del Norte (herein referred to as the Herman- dad) which was negotiated by Respondent and the Federa- cion de Camioneros de Puerto Rico (herein referred to as the Federacion) and, in furtherance of such demands, tell- ing an employee of the Company in substance that he could not pick up freight for customer-consignees of the Company and preventing an employee of the Company from picking up said freight because the Company had not signed the stipulation and by telling the Company in sub- stance that it would not be allowed to pick up freight for its customer-consignees and attempting to prevent the Com- pany from picking up such freight because the Company had not signed the stipulation, with an object of forcing and requiring the Company to enter into the aforesaid col- lective-bargaining agreement, thereby requiring the Com- pany to join the Hermandad, an employer organization. Respondent in its answer dated February 7, 1978, which was amended at the hearing, denies having violated the Act. It further alleges as affirmative defenses that the Com- pany is a member of the Hermandad and is bound by the collective-bargaining agreement between the Hermandad and Respondent. The issues involved are whether the Company is a mem- ber of the Hermandad and is bound by the collective-bar- gaining agreement between Respondent and the Herman- dad and whether Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(A) of the Act by engaging in the conduct alleged for the proscribed object of forcing or requiring the Com- pany to join the Hermandad, an employer organization. Upon the entire record in this case and from my obser- vations of the witnesses and after due consideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent. 2 hereby make the following: 3 FINDINGS OF Ft I I THE BUSINESS OF TIlE EMPLOYER The Company, with its principal office and place of business located at Bayamon, Puerto Rico, is engaged in the business of providing freight transportation services, and at all times material herein it has continuously en- As noted nfra, the full name of Jaime Andino is Jainie Andino Maldo- nado. I he (nompan did not submit a brief. tinless otherwise indicated the findings ire based upon the pleadings. admissions. stipulations. and undisputed evidence contained in the record which I credit gaged in providing freight transportation services from, in- ter alia, the Isla Grande, San Juan Terminal of TMT Trail- er Ferry, Inc. (herein referred to as the TMT Termianl), a marine shipper, to and for its customer-consignees in Puer- to Rico, including, inter alia, Merell National Laborato- ries: Olay Co.: Johnson & Johnson: Vicks, Inc.; Richard- son Merell Interamerica, Inc: and Eli Lilly, S.A., each of which annually purchases goods valued in excess of $50,000 which it ships directly to points located outside of Puerto Rico. During the 12-month period preceding Janu- ary 27. 1978, a representative period, the Company in the course of its operations performed freight transportation services valued in excess of $50,000, of which freight ser- vices valued in excess of $50,000 were performed for van- ous enterprises located in Puerto Rico, each of which en- terprises is engaged in interstate commerce, and the Company, by engaging in said freight transportation ser- vices, constitutes an essential link in the transportation of commodities in interstate commerce. Based upon the foregoing, I find that the Company is an employer engaged in commerce and in an industry affect- ing commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) 8(b)(4)(A) of the Act. II THE LABOR OR(iANIZAFlON INVOLVEI) Union de Tronquistas de Puerto Rico, Local 901, afilia- da a la 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. III rilt I N AIR I ABR() PRA( I I(S A. Background and the Collective-Bargaining Agreement Involved The Company, which is located at Bayamon, Puerto Rico, is engaged in providing freight transportation ser- vices. Jaime Andino Maldonado (herein referred to as An- dino) is the sole proprietor. It operates approximately five trucks and employs several drivers. The Hermandad is a multiemployer association com- prised of approximately 125 trucking companies and self- employed truckers operating in the northeastern part of the island of Puerto Rico. As part of its functions the Herman- dad, on behalf of its members, has negotiated and executed collective-bargaining agreements with the Respondent cov- ering the truckdrivers and helpers in addition to certain other employees employed by its members. The Hermandad, along with three other multiemployer associations-namely, the Puerto Rico Trucking Associa- tion, Inc., the Asociacion de Camioneros del Sur, and the Asociacion de Damioneros del Oeste-on behalf of their respective members, negotiated and executed a collective- bargaining agreement with Respondent effective from Jan- uary 1, 1972, through December 31, 1974. This agreement contained automatic renewal provisions absent timely no- tice to terminate, amend, or cancel the agreement. During the latter part of 1974 the Federacion was cre- ated. Victor Urbino, who was a member of the board of directors of the Hermandad, credibly testified that the UNION DE TRONQUISTAS DE PUERTO RICO, LOCAL 901 927 Federacion was founded, by the Hermandad and the other and requested a date for that purpose. However, the Her- multiemployer associations mentioned, to negotiate a col- mandad did not respond to this letter. Instead the Federa- lective-bargaining agreement with Respondent. Authoriza- cion. b a letter to Secretary-Treasurer Pagan dated No- tion forms which were distributed to members of the lHer- vember 5. 1974. from Victor Urbino. advised Pagan that mandad and the other multiemployer associations Urbino had been named president of the bargaining com- provided as follows: mittee for a new contract and requested arrangements for FEDERACION DE CAMIONEROS DE PERTO the first negotiating meeting. This letter also listed the RICO names of six other members of the Federacion's bargaining committee, which included Pablo Llanos. 5 I, -- -. of legal age. - and a resi- Negotiations between the Federacion and Respondent dent of -- , authorize Federacion de Cam- for a collective-bargaining agreement began in late 1974 or ioneros de Puerto Rico and its spokesman, the Presi- early 1975 and ended about March 24. 1975. dent, MR. VICTOR M. URBINO, to bargain on Respondent's Organizing Representative Jose Cadiz, behalf and in representation of --- the con- who was one of Respondent's representatives in these ne- tract that will govern the labor-management relations gotiations. testified that at the first negotiation meeting he between the Company and Union de and Attorney Primitivo Pagan." who also represented Re- Tronquistas de Puerto Rico, Local 901. spondent in negotiations. informed Attorney Dominguez The President, MR. VICTOR M. UIRBINO. and they would not accept an amendment of the negotiating the Bargaining Committee shall have the authority to forms and had always had collective-bargaining agree- bargain concerning all the terms and conditions of ments with the various hermandads and said the) would employment contained in the collective bargaining not get anywhere with the Federacion. agreement as they deem it convenient for the interest While Attorney Dominguez stated he could not recall of Cadiz mentioning that Respondent would not recognize (Company). the Federacion as the multiemployer bargaining unit and Likewise, I commit myself not to sign any contract denied it was ever an issue in negotiations. both Victor with Union de Company Tronquistas de Puerto Rico. Urbino and Pablo Llanos, who were on the Federacion's Local 901. since I shall sign the contract negotiated b bargaining committee, stated that at the first meeting Re- Federacion de Camioneros de Puerto Rico. spondent's representative stated it would not recognize the (Signature) Federacion as the multiemployer bargaining unit and (Company) would recognize the four multiemployer associations indi- Date: vidually. Although the testimonies of Cadiz, Urbino, and Llanos, According to Urbino, after these forms had been com- which I credit regarding these statements, particularly in pleted by various members of the Hermandad and the the absence of a denial by Dominguez, reflect that Respon- other multiemployer associations, he gave them to Attor- dent had informed the Federacion it would not recognize ney Daniel Dominguez. Dominguez, who had been em- the Federacion as the multiemployer bargaining unit. Re- ployed by the Federacion on November 14. 1974. to repre- spondent thereafter continued to meet and negotiate with sent it in negotiating a new collective-bargaining the Federacion and its bargaining representatives. 7 agreement with Respondent. as was confirmed by a letter During the course of these negotiations. Respondent, from Urbino to Dominguez. acknowledged he received the pursuant to its written requests, was furnished by Attorney approximately 67 signed authorization forms. Dominguez with a written list of the names of the compa- While two other witnesses, Pablo Llanos and Carlos Riv- nies which had signed authorizations for and were repre- era Lang. who both had served on the board of directors of sented by the Federacion. These names, pursuant to Re- the Hermandad, claimed the Federacion was only created spondent's requests, were listed under the names of their for the purpose of collecting money from members of the multiemplover associations. According to Attorney Dom- Hermandad and the other multiemployer associations to inguez' undisputed testimony, which I credit s. during the pay a lawyer. I discredit their testimonies, which are incon- beginning of negotiations in November or December. Re- sistent with the authorization forms which they themselves spondent requested the same information, which he listed had signed for the Federacion.4 on a piece of paper and gave to Respondent's Secretary- On October 23, 1974 Respondent's secretary-treasurer. Treasurer Pagan. The name of the Company was not in- Luis Pagen. sent a letter addressed to Pablo Llanos as pres- cluded among the names furnished to Respondent. ident of the Hermanad. notifying him that the collective- No collective-bargaining agreement was reached be- bargaining agreement between them would expire on De- tween the Federacion and Respondent. Both Attorney cember 31. 1974, and officially informed him it was avail- Dominguez and Organizing Representative Cadiz testified able to negotiate a new collective-bargaining agreement Afcordlng to Pablo Illano,. the members of the bargainng cmmtnlle were frnm Ihe lHernmandad and each of the mulllemploer asocilll.tn L I.ang admitted signing his alulhorlalon form on )ecemiber Is. 1974. At rn e Pan did n tesilfs and Llanos ackniowledged that i 1977. at i.ng' request, he had ollen W hile (idl further stated they agreed al the miteeili to continue neo- approximate? 67 authorizaltioin forns. nclidird g his owln form. black frili tin.ltns wlth the undersltandinr that each one would be ai separate assocla - Atlornes I)oninguei. at which itiin he also , ignled 1 lecelpt stilig. "I trol i1 \icE of hi filure to testif\ specfical.dl to wh.at wa said. I discredit received from Attorne l)ominguez the riginallis of the bargainin g negtl.l- his cotllclulilonar' tesitlion\ on this point tion auth orlizatllns iof the persons a;hose st;lted Secrelar\- I relsurer Pagan did not testf 928 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that their negotiations resulted in a bargaining impasse. According to Dominguez, the impasse was over salaries and arbitration and no-strike clauses. While these negotiations were going on, members of the Hermandad and other multiemployer associations engaged in a work stoppage against Respondent which began in early January and lasted approximately several weeks. On March 24, 1975. a resolution was approved by the Hermandad's membership relieving Attorney Dominguez as its representative and negotiator for the collective-bar- gaining agreement and approved a new bargaining com- mittee, authorizing it to represent it in negotiating a new collective-bargaining agreement with Respondent and to accept or reject any proposal of Respondent and in the name of the Hermandad to sign a collective-bargaining agreement effective from January 1, 1975, to December 31, 1977. 9 The new bargaining committee selected by the Herman- dad included four persons only one of whom, Victor Urbi- no, had served on the Federacion's bargaining committee. Carlos Rivera Lang, who served as president of the new bargaining committee, sent Respondent a telegram on March 26, 1975, informing it the Hermandad wished to continue negotiations and requested a date to begin.'0 Negotiations were thereafter held between Respondent and the Hermandad and other multiemployer associations. On April 1, 1975, Respondent and the Hermandad, along with the Asociacion de Camioneros de Sur and the Asocia- cion de Camioneros del Oeste, executed a collective-bar- gaining agreement effective from January 1, 1975, to De- cember 31, 1977.11 This agreement also contained automatic renewal provisions. According to both Carlos Rivera Lang and Victor Urbino, who served on the new bargaining committee, this agreement was negotiated by, agreed to by, and signed by the bargaining committee. Un- der cross-examination Urbino, who had also represented the Federacion in negotiations, acknowledged that they had made headway in the previous negotiations and that what was really pending were the economic clauses upon which agreement was then reached. Organizing Represen- tative Cadiz, who participated in these negotiations, denied that any part of this agreement had been negotiated with Attorney Dominguez or the Federacion. While the appendix to this agreement listed the name of the Company as being one of the members of the Herman- dad, Carlos Rivera Lang acknowledged that the names of the companies contained in the appendix were based upon the oaths of allegiance these companies had signed for the Hermandad.l 2 Lang stated that one reason he furnished On March 27. 1978. the Asociacion de Camioneros del Sur passed a similar resolution relieving Attorney Dominguez as its represent.rtise and ne~utiator and appointing a negotiating committee. On March 29, 1975. the Asociacion de Camioneros del Sur also re- quested negotiations with Respondent. II The Puerto Rico Trucking Association, Inc., which had signed the pre- vious collective-bargaining agreement, did not sign this agreement Accord- ing to Attornev Dominguez. the Puerto Rico Movers Association. A hich was formed from the remaining companies in the Puerto Rico Trucking Association. Inc.. subsequently signed a separate collective-bargaining agreement with Respondent. The C(ompany. as discussed infra, signed its oath of allegiance on De- cember 10, 1%969 and the Hfermandad never received any subsequent au- this list to Respondent was because Respondent was com- plaining that there were too many pirates that did not be- long to Respondent and the Hermandad, and he had to look for ways so those people did not take their loads. According to Respondent's Organizing Representative Cadiz, prior to the expiration of the collective-bargaining agreement on December 31, 1977, all the members of the Hermandad were given notice by Respondent that a new collective-bargaining agreement would be negotiated. A certified letter to this effect was sent to Andino.'3 Andino did not respond to this letter or deny receiving it. On December 16, 1977, Respondent and the Hermandad entered into a written stipulation (herein referred to as the Stipulation) extending the collective-bargaining agreement with certain amendments for 3 years from December 1, 1977, until November 1., 1978. B. The Company's Relationship to the Hermandad The Company became a member of the Hermandad on December 10, 1969, at which time Andino signed an oath of allegiance which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: I further authorize this honorable Hermandad to represent me, to discuss and sign collective-bargaining agreements binding on the membership with the La- bor Union that the former recognizes or is legally cer- tified. Andino credibly testified that the Company only re- mained a member of the Hermandad up until about Sep- tember or October 1974, at which time he stopped attend- ing meetings. Previously, the Company stopped paying dues to the Hermandad in 1971. Andino denied that while the Company was a member of the Hermandad it had ever signed a collective-bargaining agreement t4 with Respon- dent or honored or complied with such an agreement or been asked to do so. Under cross-examination Andino acknowledged he had never notified the Hermandad or Respondent about the Company withdrawing from membership in the Herman- dad - and that at the last meeting of the Hermandad which he had attended, he had learned it was negotiating with the Respondent for a collective-bargaining agreement. Two witnesses presented by Respondent, Victor Urbino and Carlos Rivera Lang, who both were members of the Hermandad's board of directors, testified that as far as they knew, Andino was still a member of the Hermandad. However, I discredit their testimonies, which had no valid basis. Urbino, who based his testimony on the fact that Andino had attended meetings and was on the roster, ad- mitted under cross-examination that he did not know when Andino had last attended a meeting and that the roster had thorization to represent the Company. A registered return receipt shows that a letter addressed to Andino was delivered on November 2. 1977. TIhe letter itself was dated December 28, 1977, which date Cadiz explained was erroneous. 1 According to Pablo Llanos, after the negotiators signed the master col- lective-bargaining agreement. the individual members of the Hermandad signed their own individual collectise-bargaining agreements with Respon- dent. | No evidence was proffered to establish what, if any, procedures existed for withdraAing from membership in the Hermandad. UNION DE TRONQUISTAS DE PUERTO RICO, LOCAL, 901 929 been prepared from the original membership forms. Lang. under cross-examination, stated his testimony was based upon the fact that Andino, who he had described as a good friend, had not told him he wanted to resign and because on various occasions upon inviting Andino to attend meet- ings of the Hermandad, Andiono had stated he would.'6 However, Lang acknowledged he did not know whether Andino had attended any of those meetings. While Lang also testified that he was sure Andino had participated in the 1977 work stoppage with other members of the Hermandad, absent as here evidence that he was in a position to have observed the Company's operations at all times during the work stoppage, I credit Andino's denial that his company participated in that work stoppage. Respondent's Organizing Representative Cadiz acknowl- edged the Company had not made any payments towards the employees' medical plan during the past 5 years. While, according to Cadiz, Respondent's officers acting on his or- ders had been stopping the Company's trucks since 1972 for this reason, the only occasion on which Cadiz stated he was present occurred in 1975 when Andino was stopped and not allowed to run and in 1978 when one of the Com- pany's drivers talked to Carlos Rodriguez. However, Cadiz did not testify specifically what was said on either of those two occasions, and Carlos Rodriguez did not testify. Isabelo Vazquez,' 7 who is a member of Respondent and was presented as a witness by Respondent. testified that while he was employed by Respondent 18 he had stopped the Company's trucks in 1973, 1974, 1975, and 1976 be- cause the Company owed Respondent money and because the Company's drivers had claimed Andino had fired them before their probationary periods were up.'9 However, on cross-examination Vazquez, upon being asked about whether he had stopped Andino's trucks in 1974 and 1975, claimed, contrary to his direct testimony. that he could not recall or did not remember. Based on these contradictions in his testimony and my observations of the witness, I dis- credit Vazquez. Andino acknowledged Vazquez had stopped his drivers on three occasions when he had only one truck and one driver. On those occasions, after the driver contacted him he would drive the truck himself to use it in getting the van out without his being stopped. On one occasion, upon ask- ing Vazquez whether he wanted him to take the driver, who had a family, off the truck, Vazquez told him to let the man go on working. Andino also stated that at the beginning of 1975 Vazquez had stopped one of his drivers, whereupon he went to the terminal and took the driver's place and got the van out while Respondent's representatives were pres- ent. According to Andino, his company was not a member of the Hermandad at the time. Ih Andino stated that in 1977 I.ang had inted him to a meeting. Ahere- upon he replied that if he could find time he would go. ~Vazquez nickname Is "('Chasel " tAccording to Vazquez, he had terminated his emploiient sith Re- spondenl about 2 ears prior to his testifling in this matter n M.arch 15 1978. I Andino denied he had ever discharged ans probhatimnar? empDee, C. The Lnlatuful Conduct Engaged in bhi the Respondent For the Proscribed Object Alleged Esteban Andino, who is employed by the Company as a truckdriver, testified that on the morning of December 27, 1977, he went to the TMT Terminal to get a van for their customer, the Olay Company. While he was in the process of leaving the terminal, three persons, subsequently identi- fied as Carlos Rodriguez,20 Mr. Carrion, and Mr. Cabrera and who had unsuccessfully signaled him to stop as he entered the gate, came over to his truck and asked him whether he was Jaime Andino. Upon replying that Andino was his brother, they told him to call Andino. because if Andino did not come over, he could not get the van out. While waiting for Andino, whom he had called, to arrive, one of the three men showed him a blank copy of the Stipulation 21 and told him it was convenient that Andino sign it and explained that by Andino signing it he would benefit by getting the medical plan and a better salary. Andino testified that upon arriving at the TMT Termi- nal gates that morning, he asked the three men, whom his brother had pointed out to him, why they would not let him get the van out. When they replied that the reason was because he had not signed the Stipulation, Andino denied he had ever signed anything for them in order for him to be able to work. Upon informing them that he needed to get the van out and get it loaded for a client, they told him to sign the Stipulation, and then they could get it out. When he replied he could not sign it because he did not know what he would be signing, they told him it was the same thing that had been signed in the prior contract. Andino denied ever reading or signing it and asked for a copy of the Stipulation to study and consult with his attorney, whereupon the three men conferred among themselves, af- ter which one of them gave Andino a copy of the Stipula- tion and said they would give him until midday to bring it back signed. They also informed him, pursuant to his in- quiry, that if they were not there when he returned, he could take it to Respondent's office. Upon again asking whether he could get the van out for his client, they told him to go ahead but said he wouldn't be allowed to get another van out until he signed it. Esteban Andino, who was present during part of the conversation, corroborated, in part. Andino's testimony. Carlos Rodriguez, Mr. Carrion, and Mr. Cabrera did not testify'. Based upon the undisputed testimonies of Andino and Esteban Andino concerning these two conversations, which I credit, I find that on December 27, 1977, Respon- dent by its agent Carlos Rodriguez 22 induced and encour- aged Esteban Andino, an employee of the Company, not to pick up a van for a customer because the Company had not signed the Stipulation and threatened the Company's '1 he Respondent admits Carlos Rodriguez is one of ts agenlis The blank copy of the Stipulation contained a space for the name of the (ompi ani and the multiemploer association of which it was a member to be nserted 2 }:lasin foliund that ( rlo Rdriguez an idmitted agent of Respon- dent. egaed in this conduc I do not find it necessars to also determine uhelher Mr. Carrion or Mri (ahrer. neither of whom ere further identi- fied except h name or their reltionship to Respondent shu n. ere also acting as Respondent s agents 930 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD owner, Andino, that his Company could not get vans out for its customers unless the Company signed the Stipula- tion. Andino testified that the following morning he went to the Navieros de Puerto Rico, which is a shipping company, and had a conversation with one of the three men whom he had talked to the previous day. This man identified himself as Carlos Rodriguez and informed him that one of the other men with him the previous day was Mr. Carrion.23 According to Andino, on this occasion Isabelo Vazquez was also present and Respondent's Organizing Representa- tive Cadiz was a short distance away. Andino stated that when he asked Rodriguez why he had to sign the Stipula- tion if it expired on December 31, 1977, Rodriguez in- formed him it was a continuation of the same agreement except for the medical plan. Upon asking both Rodriguez and Vazquez whether, if it wasn't convenient for him to sign the Stipulation, Rodriguez would tell the shipping companies not to let him get out the vans with merchan- dise, both Rodriguez and Vazquez replied they were going to handle the case but told him to wait while they consult- ed with Cadiz. When they returned he asked them what they would do if he got on his truck and went into the Navieros, at which time they told him he could not haul if he did not sign. According to Andino, Vazquez put his arms around his shoulders and told him to sign up so he would get rid of his problems and told him all the truckers would have to go through the same thing and had to sign in order to be able to work. Carlos Rodriguez, as previously noted, did not testify. Although Isabelo Vazquez denied seeing or talking to An- dino on December 28, 1977, and further stated that on that date he worked at the TMT Terminal, where he was em- ployed, I discredit his testimony for reasons previously giv- en. Organizing Representative Jose Cadiz acknowledged he was present on one occasion, about December 28, 1977, when Carlos Rodriguez, who worked under his supervi- sion, had talked to one of Andino's drivers, whereupon he instructed Rodriguez, pursuant to his inquiry, to tell the driver they were going to keep stopping him until he paid up his arrears. I credit Andino's testimony and find that on December 28, 1977, Respondent's agent Carlos Rodriguez again threatened the Company's owner, Andino, that his compa- ny could not get vans out for its customers unless the Com- pany signed the Stipulation.2 4 D. Analvsis and Conclusions The General Counsel contends that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(A) of the Act by preventing an employee of the Company from picking up freight for its customers and by threatening the Company with not being allowed to pick up freight for its customers for the pro- scribed object of forcing or requiring the Company to enter into a stipulation which by its terms would require the 21 Andino recognized he third man fromr the preious day. hb aI news pruoranm, as being Mr. (Cabrera. I do not find it necessary to further find whether Isabelo Va'zqtiuc. who was not eniphloed h Respondentr at the time. was also acting as its agent. Company to join the Hermandad, which is an employer organization. Respondent denies having violated the Act and asserts as affirmative defenses that the Company is a member of the Hermandad and is bound by the collective- bargaining agreement between the Hermandad and Re- spondent. The initial issue to be resolved is whether the Company is a member of the Hermandad and is bound by the collec- tive-bargaining agreement between the Hermandad and Respondent. The findings supra establish that the Company became a member of the Hermandad, which is a multiemployer bar- gaining association, in December 1969 and authorized it to act as its collective-bargaining representative in negotiating and executing collective-bargaining agreements. It re- mained active as a member until the latter part of 1974, when, after learning that a new collective-bargaining agree- ment was being negotiated, as admitted by Andino, the Company, without giving any prior notice of withdrawing from the Hermandad, ceased its participation in the Her- mandad. Since the Company was a member of and was active in the Hermandad at the time, it was covered by the collective-bargaining agreement between the Hermandad and Respondent in effect from January 1, 1972, through December 31, 1974. While no notice was given by the Company of its intention to withdraw from the Herman- dad prior to the negotiations for a new collective-bargain- ing agreement with Respondent in 1974, the initial negotia- tions were not conducted by the Hermandad, of which the Company was a member, but by the Federacion, which was created by the Hermandad and the other multiemploy- er associations to act as the collective-bargaining represen- tative in negotiating and executing a collective-bargaining agreement with Respondent. The Company, unlike other members of the Hermandad and the other multiemployer associations, did not authorize the Federacion to act as its bargaining representative. Contrary to Respondent's con- tention that it did not recognize the Federacion as the col- lective-bargaining representative. it met and bargained with the Federacion for approximately 3 months for a col- lective-bargaining agreement, which negotiations culminat- ed in a bargaining impasse being reached between them. Respondent, through a list of names furnished to it by the Federacion, had knowledge the Company was not covered by the negotiations. Although the Hermandad and other multiemployer asso- ciations subsequently removed the Federacion as the col- lective-bargaining representative and on April , 1975, exe- cuted a collective-bargaining agreement with Respondent effective from January I, 1975, to December 31, 1977, and on December 16, 1977, signed the Stipulation, extending this agreement from December , 1977, to November 1, 1978, the Hermandad, which had previously abdicated its role as the collective-bargaining representative of its mem- bers to the Federacion, did so without obtaining any au- thorization to again act as the collective-bargaining repre- sentative for the Company, which was no longer active in the Hermandad. The law is well settled that after bargaining negotiations begin in an existing multiemployer unit, withdrawal from such unit will not be permitted except on mutual consent, UNION DE TRONQUISTAS DE PUERTO RICO. LOCAL 901 931 abandonment of the unit upon which each side has conm- mitted itself to the other, or unusual circumstances. Florida Fire Sprinklers. Inc., 237 NLRB 1034 (1978): Retail -l.,oci- ales, Inc., 120 NLRB 388, 395 (1958). Since the Hermandad had abdicated its role as a collec- tive-bargaining representative of its members to the Feder- acion, of which Respondent had knowledge and with which Respondent had participated in bargaining, and upon resuming its role as the bargaining representative did so without obtaining any new authorization from the Com- pany, which was no longer active in the Hermandad. I find, based upon these circumstances and the abandon- ment of the unit, that the Company was not a member of the Hermandad or bound by the collective-bargaining agreement between Respondent and Hermanded executed on April 1. 1975, or the Stipulation extending that agree- ment from December 1. 1977. to November 1., 1978. not- withstanding the Company's name was included in those agreements. The remaining issue is whether Respondent violated Sec- tion 8(b)(4Xi) and (ii)(A) of the Act. as alleged. Section 8(b)(4) of the Act makes it an unfair labor prac- tice for a union: (i) to engage in. or to induce or encourage an, indi- vidual employed by any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in. a strike or a refus:al in the course of his employment to use. manufacture, process. transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods. articles, materials. or commodities, or to perform any services: or (ii) to threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce where in either case an object thereof is: (A) forcing or requiring any employer or self-em- ployed person to join any labor organization or em- ployer organization or to enter into any agreement which is prohibited by Section 8(e). The findings supra establish that on December 27. 1977. Respondent by its agent. Carlos Rodriguez. induced and encouraged Esteban Andino an employee of the Compa- ny, not to pick up a van for a customer because the Com- pany had not signed the Stipulation and that on December 27 and 28, 1977. Rodriguez threatened the Company's owner. Andino, that his Company could not get vans out for its customers unless the Company signed the Stipula- tion. To sign the blank stipulation, which required listing the name of the multiemployer association to which a compa- ny belonged, would in effect require the Company to join the Hermandad as well as be bound by the collective-bar- gaining agreement. Based on the foregoing evidence and for the reasons stated and having previously rejected Respondent's affir- matie defenses. I find that Respondent induced and en- couraged Esteban Andino, an employee of the Compan. not to perform an? services for the Compan and threat- ened. coerced, and restrained the Company's owner. Andi- no. with an object of forcing or requiring the Compan to join the Hermandad, which is an employer organization, thereby violating Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(A) of the Act. IN HE FfFFCT OF tHF I NFAIR I BO()R PRA(('TCES I PON COMMERc'E The activities of the Respondent, set forth in section 111. above. found to constitute unfair labor practices occurring in connection with the operations of the Company. de- scribed in section 1, above. have a close, intimate, and sub- stantial relationship to trade, traffic. and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes bur- dening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. CON(.IA SIONS 01 L.A. I. Jaime Andino db a Jaime Andino Trucking is an employer engaged in commerce and in an industrN affect- ing commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) and 8(h)(4)(A). 2. Union de Tronquistas de Puerto Rico. Local 901. afi- liada a la 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. 3. By inducing and encouraging an employee of Jaime Andino d/b/a Jaime Andino Trucking not to perform ser- vices for Jaime Andino d/b/a Jaime Andino Trucking and by threatening, coercing and restraining Jaime Andino d b a Jaime Andino Trucking with an object of forcing or requiring Jaime Andino db 'a Jaime Andino Trucking to join the Hermandad de Camioneros del Norte. which is an employer organization. Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(A) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THi RFEM)EDm Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(A) of the Act. I ahall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac- tion to effectuate the policies of the Act. [Recommended Order omitted from publication.]