Union Nacional de Trabajadores

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsApr 24, 1973

203 N.L.R.B. 106 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Union Nacional de Trabajadores and its agent Ra- dames Acosta-Cepeda and Surgical Appliances Mfg., Inc . Case 24-CB-831 April 24, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO Upon a charge filed on November 13, 1972, by Surgical Appliances Mfg., Inc., herein called the Company, and duly served on Union Nacional de Trabajadores, herein called Respondent Union, and its agent Radames Acosta-Cepeda, herein called Re- spondent Acosta-Cepeda, both also collectively called Respondents, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 24, issued a complaint and notice of hearing on December 15, 1972, against Respondents, alleging that Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(b)(1)(A) and 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Cop- ies of the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing before an Administrative Law Judge were duly served on the parties to this proceeding. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the com- plaint alleges in substance that on October 17, 1972, the Company laid off certain of its employees and on October 18, 1972, in protest thereof, said laid-off em- ployees established a picket line in front of the Company's plant, which picketing activities a labor organization, not Respondent Union herein, support- ed until on or about November 8, 1972, at which time Respondent Union through its agent Respondent Acosta-Cepeda commenced its support and adoption of said picketing activities. More specifically, the complaint alleges that (1) on or about November 9, 1972, at or near the picket line described above, Re- spondent Acosta-Cepeda threw a stone at two em- ployees who had crossed the picket line and reported to work; (2) on or about November 15, 1972, at or near the driveway located at the side of the Company's plant, Respondents through their agent, Amada Torres, a picketing employee, inflicted dam- age to the property of a company official in the pres- ence of employees; (3) on or about November 15, 1972, at or near the loading platform entrance to the Company's plant, Respondents by their picketing em- ployees and other unknown agents, led by Respon- dent Acosta-Cepeda, surrounded the car of a company official driving nonstriking employees to work and blocked and impeded the access of said employees to the Company's plant; (4) on or about November 15, 1972, at or near the loading platform entrance to the Company's plant, Respondent Acos- ta-Cepeda assaulted an employee passenger of the car described above, poured hot coffee over a company supervisor, and attacked the wife of the Company's president, all in the presence of company employees; and (5) on or about December 4, 1972, at or near the entrance to the Company's premises, Respondent Acosta-Cepeda assaulted the Company's president. The complaint alleges that an object of Respondents' conduct described above was to induce the Company's employees not to cross the picket line de- scribed above. A Motion for Summary Judgment, dated January 10, 1973, was filed directly with the Board by counsel for the General Counsel based on Respondents' fail- ure to file an answer as required by Sections 102.20 and 102.21 of the Board's Rules and Regulations. Subsequently, on January 19, 1973, the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show Cause why the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment should not be grant- ed. Respondents failed to file a response to the Notice To Show Cause. 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. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes the following: Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment Section 102.20 of the Board's Rules and Regula- tions, Series 8, as amended, provides as follows: The respondent shall, within 10 days from the service of the complaint, file an answer thereto. The respondent shall specifically admit, deny, or explain each of the facts alleged in the complaint, unless the respondent is without knowledge, in which case the respondent shall so state, such statement operating as a denial. All allegations in the complaint, if no answer is filed, or any allega- tions in the complaint not specifically denied or explained in an answer filed, unless the respon- dent shall state in the answer that he is without knowledge, shall be deemed to be admitted to be true and shall be so found by the Board, unless good cause to the contrary is shown. The complaint and notice of hearing served on the Respondents specifically stated that unless an answer was filed to the complaint within 10 days from the service therof "all of the allegations of the complaint shall be deemed to be admitted to be true and may be 203 NLRB No. 11 UNION NACIONAL DE TRABAJADORES 107 so found by the Board." Further, according to the Motion for Summary Judgment, on January 2, 1973, the Regional Director for Region 24, pursuant to Sec- tion 102.22 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, voluntarily extended the time for Respondents to file an answer to the complaint until the close of business on January 9, 1973, warning Respondents that unless their respective answers were filed within the extend- ed time a motion would be made before the Board for the entry of an order based on the undenied allega- tions of the complaint. Respondents failed to file their respective answers by January 9, 1973. Thereafter, on January 10, 1973, no answer having been filed, coun- sel for the General Counsel filed a Motion for Sum- mary Judgment. Subsequently, on January 11, 1973, Respondents filed a general answer to the complaint admitting in part, and denying in part, the allegations in the complaint. In the answer, Respondents offer no explanation for their failure to file a timely answer. By letter, dated January 12, 1973, counsel for the General Counsel advised counsel for Respondents that as Re- spondents had failed to file a timely answer to the complaint issued on December 15, 1972, and as Re- spondents had failed to file an answer within the ex- tended time , the Regional Director had rejected Respondents' answer as being untimely filed. As Respondents had not filed an answer within 10 days from the service of the complaint, nor within the extended time afforded them by the Regional Direc- tor, and as no good cause to the contrary has been shown, in accordance with the rule set forth above, the allegations of the complaint herein are deemed to be admitted to be true and are so found to be true.' We shall, accordingly, grant the Motion for Summary Judgment. On the Basis of the entire record, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The Company is a Puerto Rico corporation en- gaged in the manufacture of orthopedic and surgical appliances in Caguas, Puerto Rico. During the last calendar year, a representative period, the Company purchased and caused to be shipped directly to its factory at Caguas, Puerto Rico, from points and places located outside of Puerto Rico, materials and supplies necessary for the conduct of its operations valued in excess of $50,000. We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that the Company is, and has been at all times material herein, Jerry C. Wilson, Curbs Wilson and Rodney V Wilson d/b/a/ Wilson & Sons, 193 NLRB 350, and cases cited therein. an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert juris- diction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent, Union Nacional de Trabajadores, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Respondent Acosta-Cepeda is, and at all times ma- terial herein has been, the secretary-treasurer of Re- spondent Union. At all times material herein, Respondent Acosta-Cepeda was the representative of Respondent Union in charge of its organizational ac- tivities at the Company's factory III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES On or about November 9, 1972, at or near the picket line described above, Respondent Acosta- Cepeda threw a stone at two employees who had crossed the picket line and reported to work; on or about November 15, 1972, at or near the driveway located at the side of the Company's plant, Respon- dents through their agent Amada Torres, a picketing employee, inflicted damage to the property of a com- pany official in the presence of employees; on or about November 15,1972, at or near the loading plat- form entrance to the Company's plant, Respondents by their picketing employees and other unknown agents, led by Respondent Acosta-Cepeda, surround- ed the car of a company official driving nonstriking employees to work and blocked and impeded the ac- cess of said employees to the Company's plant; on or about November 15, 1972, at or near the loading plat- form entrance to the Company's plant, Respondent Acosta-Cepeda assaulted an employee passenger of the car described above, poured hot coffee over a company supervisor, and attacked the wife of the Company's president, all in the presence of company employees; and on or about December 4, 1972, at or near the entrance to the Company's premises, Re- spondent Acosta-Cepeda assaulted the Company's president. Accordingly, we find that, by the aforesaid acts and conduct, Respondents have restrained and coerced, and are restraining and coercing, employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them under Section 7 of the Act and that, by such conduct, Respondents thereby engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with its operations described in section II, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and com- merce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b)(I)(A) of the Act, we shall order each Respondent to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effec- tuate the policies of the Act. The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts and the entire record , makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Surgical Appliances Mfg., Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Union Nacional de Trabajadores is a labor or- ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Acosta-Cepeda is an agent of Respondent Union within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act. 4. By the acts and conduct described in section III, above, Respondents have restrained and coerced, and are restraining and coercing, employees in the exer- cise of the rights guaranteed them under Section 7 of the Act and thereby have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec- tion 8(b)(I)(A) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board hereby orders that the Respondent Un- ion, Nacional de Trabajadores, and its agent, Respondent Radames Acosta-Cepeda, Caguas, Puer- to Rico, their officers , agents , and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Throwing stones or otherwise coercing any em- ployees of Surgical Appliances Mfg., Inc., attempting to cross a picket line in order to report to work. (b) Inflicting damage to the property of company officials. (c) Surrounding the car of any company official driving nonstriking employees to work and blocking and impeding the access of said employees to the Company's plant. (d) Assaulting employee passengers of any car de- scribed above, or assaulting any company supervisor or company official or their family. (e) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar- anteed them in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its business offices and meeting halls, in both English and Spanish translation, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."2 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 24, after being duly signed by an author- ized representative, shall be posted by Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof , and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con- spicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 24, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith. 2 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 " APPENDIX NOTICE TO MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act guar- antees all employees the right to join and assist labor unions and also the right, with certain exceptions, to refrain from joining and assisting labor unions and to refrain from participating in union activities, includ- ing strikes. WE WILL NOT restrain and coerce the employees of Surgical Appliances Mfg., Inc., in the exercise UNION NACIONAL DE TRABAJADORES of their Section 7 rights. More specifically: WE WILL NOT throw stones or otherwise coerce any employees of Surgical Appliances Mfg., Inc., who attempt to cross a picket line in order to report to work. WE WILL NOT inflict damage to the property of company officials. WE WILL NOT surround the car of any company official driving nonstriking employees to work and block and impede the access of said employ- ees to the Company's plant. WE WILL NOT assault employee passengers of any car described above or assault any company supervisor or company official or their family. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner re- strain or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. UNION NACIONAL DE TRABAJAD- ORDES (Labor Organization) Dated By 109 RADAMES ACOSTACEPEDA (Agent) (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 7th Floor, Post Of- fice Box U.U., 255 Ponce de Leon Avenue, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 00919, Telephone 106-622-2424.