Wallace International of Puerto Rico

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 22, 1994

314 N.L.R.B. 1244 (N.L.R.B. 1994)

1244
314 NLRB No. 200
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 This case was consolidated for hearing with Case 24–RC–7529.
On May 11, 1994, the Board granted the Union’s motion to with-
draw objections filed in Case 24–RC–7529, and severed the rep-
resentation case from the present case.
2 No exceptions were filed to the judge’s dismissal of the Re-
spondent’s alleged threat of transfer of its operations or to the
judge’s recommendations that objections relating to the alleged re-
moval of a lunch van onto the Respondent’s premises, improper
electioneering, and election day threats of discharge and transfer of
operations be overruled. As noted above, the objections were with-
drawn by the Union.
3 In his motion to strike the Respondent’s exceptions and brief in
support, the General Counsel contends that the Respondent failed to
comply with Sec. 102.46(b)(1) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations.
The motion is denied as we find that the Respondent’s exceptions
sufficiently comply with the Board’s Rules and Regulations.
4 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an admin-
istrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear prepon-
derance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incor-
rect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188
F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and
find no basis for reversing the findings. In addition, the Respondent,
in its reply brief, contends that some of the judge’s credibility find-
ings demonstrate bias. On careful examination of the judge’s deci-
sion and the entire record, we are satisfied that the contention is
without merit.
We correct the judge’s misspelling of employee Luis Almodovar’s
name.
5 In his decision, the judge recommended that the election con-
ducted on February 24, 1993, in consolidated Case 24–RC–7529 be
set aside and a new election held. In light of the severance of Case
24–RC–7529, we shall delete that portion of the recommended
Order. We shall also modify the judge’s recommended Order to add
a narrow cease-and-desist order which the judge inadvertently failed
to include.
1 Hereafter, all dates in November and December are in 1992 and
all dates in January and thereafter are in 1993, unless otherwise indi-
cated.
2 The term ‘‘General Counsel,’’ when used herein, will normally
refer to the attorney in the case acting on behalf of the General
Counsel of the Board, through the Regional Director.
3 The pertinent parts of the Act (29 U.S.C. 151 § et seq.), covering
all alleged violations in these consolidated cases, read as follows:
Sec. 8(a). It shall be a unfair labor practice for an employer(1)
to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Sec. 7.
. . . .
Sec. 7. Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection.
Wallace International of Puerto Rico, Inc. and
International Silver of Puerto Rico, Inc. and
Congreso de Uniones Industriales de Puerto
Rico. Case 24–CA–66641
September 22, 1994
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS STEPHENS
AND BROWNING
On March 31, 1994, Adminstrative Law Judge Rus-
sell M. King Jr. issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions2 and a supporting brief, and
the General Counsel filed an answering brief and mo-
tion to strike the Respondent’s exceptions and brief.
The Respondent filed a reply to the General Counsel’s
answering brief and an opposition to the General
Counsel’s motion to strike.3
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has de-
cided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,4 and con-
clusions and to adopt the recommended Order as
modified.5
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent, Wal-
lace International of Puerto Rico, Inc., and Inter-
national Silver of Puerto Rico, Inc., San German, Puer-
to Rico, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified.
1. Insert the following as paragraph 1(e).
‘‘(e) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.’’
2. Delete the last paragraph of the judge’s rec-
ommended Order which sets aside the election in Case
24–RC–7529 and mandates that a new election be
held.
Jorge A. Ramos, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Pedro Pumarada, Esq. and Yldeponso Lopez Morales, Esq.
(Fiddler, Gonzalez & Rodriguez), of San Juan, Puerto
Rico, for the Respondent.
Jose A. Aneses Pena, Esq., of San Juan, Puerto Rico, for the
Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RUSSELL M. KING JR., Administrative Law Judge. These
consolidated cases were heard by me in San Juan, Puerto
Rico, on August 23–26, 1993. The charge in Case 24–CA–
6664 was filed by Congreso de Uniones Industriales De
Puerto Rico (the Union) on January 12, 1993.1 An amended
charge was filed by the Union on February 26. Based upon
this charge, a complaint was issued on February 26 by the
Regional Director for Region 24 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board (the Board), on behalf of the Board’s General
Counsel.2 The complaint alleges that in December Wallace
International of Puerto Rico, Inc. and International Silver of
Puerto Rico, Inc. (the Respondent) violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) by various
threats to employees and other improper actions if the em-
ployees continued to support the Union in its organizational
campaign.3 On December 21, the Union filed its representa-
1245WALLACE INTERNATIONAL OF PUERTO RICO
4 The unit involved included all production and maintenance em-
ployees of the machine shop, finish, making, maintenance and qual-
ity department employees, drivers, mechanics, electricians, welders,
production inventory clerks, expediters, and warehouse employees,
but excluding all other employees, office officials, administrative and
managerial employees, guards, and supervisors as defined by the
Act.
5 There is considerable testimony in this case regarding a speech
given by one Joseph Rodriguez on behalf of the Respondent in De-
cember or January. However, nothing regarding that speech is the
subject of any allegation in the complaint or in the objections filed
by the Union.
tion petition (Case 24–RC–7529), and on February 24 a
Board-conducted election was held at the Respondent’s plant,
which the Union lost.4 On March 2, the Union filed timely
objections to the conduct affecting the results of the election,
listing 11 specific allegations. After an investigation, the Re-
gional Director issued her report and recommendation on ob-
jections on June 11, finding that certain objections (or por-
tions thereof) were covered in the complaint, that other ob-
jections may have individual merit, and yet others had no
merit because of lack of evidence. No exceptions were taken
to the Regional Director’s report and recommendation on ob-
jections, which also consolidated the remaining objections
(Case 24–RC–7529) with the allegations in the complaint
(Case 24–CA–6664) for a hearing.
The issues to be determined in this case are as follows5
1. Whether Plant Supervisor Roberto Oliveras, on Decem-
ber 12, created an impression among its employees that their
union activities were under surveillance. (Complaint, par.
6(a), Objection 3.)
2. Whether Oliveras, on December 12, threatened employ-
ees with unspecified reprisals and discharge because of their
union support and activities. (Complaint, par. 6(b), Objec-
tions 1 and 4.)
3. Whether Oliveras, on December 12, promised employ-
ees a wage increase to induce them to refrain from engaging
in union activities. (Complaint, par. 6(c), Objection 2.)
4. Whether Oliveras, on December 14, offered a better
paying job to employees in order to induce them to refrain
from engaging in union activities. (Complaint, par. 6(d), Ob-
jection 8.)
5. Whether Plant Personnel Director Magaly Cruz, on De-
cember 22, threatened employees with transfer of its oper-
ations outside of Puerto Rico if they selected the Union as
their bargaining representative. (Complaint, par. 6(e), Objec-
tion 1.)
6. Whether the Respondent, in February, caused a com-
mercial lunch van to be moved inside its premises in order
to limit the employees access to or contact by the Union’s
representatives. (Objection 5.)
7. Whether the Respondent and its security guards, during
the Board-conducted election (on February 24) engaged in
improper electioneering near the line of employees waiting to
vote. (Objection 11.)
8. Whether the Respondent, on February 24, threatened
employees with discharge, and transfer of its operations out-
side of Puerto Rico to induce them to refrain from supporting
or voting for the Union. (Objection 1.)
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the
briefs filed herein by the General Counsel, counsel for the
Union, and counsel for the Respondent, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
As alleged and admitted in the pleadings filed herein, Re-
spondent Wallace International de Puerto Rico, Inc. and Re-
spondent International Silver de Puerto Rico, Inc. have been
and are affiliated business enterprises with common officers,
ownership, directors, management, and supervision, and have
formulated and administered a common labor policy. Both
have shared common premises and facilities, have provided
services for and made sales to each other, have interchanged
personnel with each other, and have held themselves out to
the public as a single-integrated business enterprise. Thus I
find that both Respondents (the Respondent) constitute a sin-
gle employer within the meaning of the Act. At all times ma-
terial herein, the Respondent has been engaged in the manu-
facturing of flatware (silver) in its facility located at San
German, Puerto Rico. In the course and conduct of these
business operations, and during the 12-month period imme-
diately preceding the issuance of the complaint herein, the
Respondent purchased and received goods and products val-
ued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers located out-
side the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Thus I find, as also
admitted, that the Respondent has been at all times material
herein, an employer engaged in commerce in a business af-
fecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
I further find, as admitted herein, that the Union is, and
has been at all times material herein, a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Brief History
In late November, employee Louis Almodovar contacted
Union Attorney Arturo Figueroa to obtain information about
how to organize a union at Respondent’s facility. Almodovar
received instructions from Figueroa and union authorization
cards to be handed out and signed by Almodovar’s fellow
workers. Almodovar began these activities at the Respond-
ent’s plant on December 1, and employee Alexis Rivera
helped Almodovar to distribute cards. The Respondent’s
human resource director, Magly Cruze, testified that she sent
out handouts about the union organization campaign on De-
cember 11. On December 21 the Union filed its representa-
tion petition with the Board, and a copy was also received
by the Respondent on that date. The union campaign ended
in a Board-conducted election on February 24. The unfair
labor practices in this case run from December 12 to the date
of the election, February 24. All of the employees testifying
in this case were current employees of the Respondent, and
worked for Respondent at least several years.
1246 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
6 Employee Luis Ramos testified that he signed a union authoriza-
tion card on December 9, and while he had the card in his pocket,
Oliveras approached him in the machine shop and told him to be
careful because management had heard that some individuals were
trying to bring a union into the Company and that those who were
involved in the Union were going to be fired. Ramos also testified
that Oliveras singled him and employee Rivera out as leaders of the
union movement. In his posthearing brief, the General Counsel
moved to amend the complaint to allege these remarks made to
Ramos by Oliveras on December 9 as an additional violation of Sec.
8(a)(1) of the Act, indicating that these remarks were fully litigated
during the hearing. In my opinion, this motion comes too late. The
proper time for the same would have been after the testimony and
during the hearing, or at the end of the hearing but before the close
of the record in this case. Thus, the General Counsel’s motion is
hereby denied.
7 The evidence reflects that Almodovar did receive an annual wage
increase at the end of the year, as did other employees. However,
from the facts and circumstances in the case, it appears that Oliveras
and Almodovar were speaking in terms of an additional increase or
‘‘raise,’’ as opposed to the normal yearly wage increase, after annual
evaluations.
8 Throughout the case, Oliveras steadfastly denied that he knew
anything about the union organizing campaign until December 15,
notwithstanding the testimony of Human Resource Director Cruze
that she found out about the campaign on December 11. I discredit
the claims of Oliveras here, as I do virtually all of his other testi-
mony in this case.
B. The Initial December 12 Allegations Against Plant
Supervisor Oliveras (Issues 1 and 2)
Paragraph 6(a) of the complaint and Objection 3 allege
that on December 12, Plant Supervisor Roberto Oliveras cre-
ated an impression among Respondent’s employees that their
union activities were under surveillance. Paragraph 6(b) of
the complaint and Objections 1 and 4 allege that on Decem-
ber 12, Oliveras threatened employees with unspecified re-
prisals and discharge because of their union support and ac-
tivities. These allegations are based solely upon the testi-
mony of employee Alexis Rivera, who had worked for the
Respondent for 6 years as a machinist, and whose supervisor
was Oliveras. Rivera testified that about 10 a.m. on Decem-
ber 12, Oliveras took him to the cafeteria and stated that he
knew that employee Luis Ramos and other fellow workers
were organizing a union. According to Rivera, Oliveras then
told him that management already knew about the Union and
was inquiring about the person who had distributed cards,
and who was in support of the Union, adding that the Re-
spondent was going to take reprisals against them that would
even entail their dismissal. Plant Supervisor Oliveras denied
making these remarks to Rivera. There were no other wit-
nesses to this conversation. In this case, I credit the testi-
mony of employee Rivera over that of Plant Supervisor
Oliveras. In fact, I discredit virtually all of the denials of
Oliveras in this case. Oliveras could speak and understand
some English, but his answers to questions put to him during
his testimony came only after the complete translation, and
then in rapid fire replies without absolutely no emotion and
no eye contact with any person in the courtroom, much less
me or the attorney submitting the questions. His ‘‘did no
wrong’’ attitude, together with his overall testimonial de-
meanor lead me to conclude that his testimony not only
lacked reflection, but was completely untruthful. I thus find
that the allegations contained in issues 1 and 2 were proven
by the testimony of Rivera, and that they were violative of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as alleged in paragraphs 6(a) and
(b) of the complaint.6
C. Oliveras’ December 12 Promise of a Wage
Increase (Issue 3)
Paragraph 6(c) of the complaint (and Objection 2) alleges
that Oliveras, in December, offered a better paying job to
employees to induce them to refrain from engaging in union
activities.
Employee Louis Almodovar was a ‘‘polisher’’ and was su-
pervised by Oliveras. He had worked at Wallace for 8 years.
Almodovar was the primary union organizer and testified
that on or about December 12 Oliveras approached him
about 1 p.m. and asked him if it was true that he was in-
volved in union matters. According to Almodovar he replied
that he knew nothing about ‘‘union things,’’ to which
Oliveras replied ‘‘you must be crazy because I’m looking for
a salary increase for you.’’ Almodovar had asked Oliveras
for a wage increase for as early as July 1992, but no increase
had been received.7 Oliveras denied the conversation with
Almodovar regarding any wage increase on December 12.
I credit the testimony of Almodovar over that of Oliveras
and find that Oliveras did extend to Almodovar the possi-
bility of a wage increase in order to induce him to refrain
from engaging in any union support. Thus I find a violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as alleged in paragraph 6(c) of
the complaint.8
D. Oliveras’ December 14 Offer of a Better Paying
Job (Issue 4)
Paragraph 6(d) of the complaint (and Objection 8) alleges
that on December 14 Oliveras offered a better paying job to
employees in order to induce them to refrain from engaging
in union activities. Employee Jose Ayala had worked for
Wallace for 8 years, and was an operator in the dye room.
Sometime in November, Ayala sustained an injury and was
out on disability until January 13. Ayala testified that on De-
cember 14 he went to the plant to collect his check where-
upon Oliveras asked him if it was true what they were saying
about the Union. Ayala replied that he did not know about
the Union because he had been out, and Oliveras then stated
that he hoped that Ayala was not in the union movement be-
cause it was not good, indicating that he was going to make
Ayala the helper of Pedro Ramos and get him an increase
of 50 to 75 cents. Ayala replied that he wanted $1.50 be-
cause he had been with the Company for 8 years. According
to Ayala, after this conversation with Oliveras, employee
Almodovar approached him and gave him a union authoriza-
tion card, and Ayala complained to Almodovar about what
Oliveras had told him to which Almodovar replied that he
could submit charges because of the statements made by
Oliveras. In his testimony Oliveras denied making any of the
statements to Ayala on December 14, more specifically
Oliveras denied that he ever offered a better paying job to
Ayala. Consistent with earlier findings, I credit Ayala’s testi-
mony and discredit Oliveras’ denials, and I thus find that
Oliveras’ offer of a better paying job to Ayala on December
14 was made in order to induce Ayala to refrain from union
1247WALLACE INTERNATIONAL OF PUERTO RICO
9 Ayala testified that he returned to work January 13 and prior to
punching in, he made a comment to other employees that they
should continue unionizing because the Union was the strength. Ac-
cording to Ayala, Oliveras overheard his comment and told him not
to campaign during working hours. Later that day, Ayala was given
a written warning for his comments or statements about the Union
made, allegedly, during working hours. Ayala refused to sign the
warning maintaining that the comment was made on his own free
time. This incident was not the subject of an allegation in the com-
plaint or in the objections filed by the Union. In its posthearing
brief, counsel for Respondent strongly questions Ayala’s credibility,
citing his mixup on dates during his testimony, the fact that he stated
that he was a high school graduate (when in fact he was educated
only through the sixth grade), and an inconsistency between his testi-
mony and a Board investigative affidavit. Ayala had worked for the
Respondent some 8 years, and apparently was at least an acceptable
employee. During his testimony, it became apparent that Ayala could
barely read. He was obviously embarassed because of this, and be-
cause of his lack of education. Without reservation, I credit his testi-
mony.
10 At this time, Cruze wore several hats. She was chief of security,
human resources, and manager of health and occupational safety.
11 Bartolome did not testify in the case.
12 Both the memorandum to the employees and the initial police
report were admitted into evidence.
13 One such meeting was held on December 12, during which the
threats of Oliveras earlier that day were discussed.
support, and a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as al-
leged in paragraph 6(b) of the complaint.9
E. The December 22 Threat by Cruze to Transfer
Operations Outside of Puerto Rico (Issue 5)
Paragraph 6(e) of the complaint (and a portion of Objec-
tion 1) alleges that Human Resource Director Magly Cruze,
on December 22, threatened employees with transfer of its
operations outside Puerto Rico if they selected the Union as
their bargaining representative. Employee Louis Almodovar
testified that on December 22 he went to Cruze’s office in
order to obtain money for the purchase of safety shoes.10 Ac-
cording to Almodovar, Cruze at that time, and in her office,
told him that the Respondent’s owner would take the plant
to Santo Domingo if the Union came in. Almodovar further
testified that when he left Cruze’s office he told employee
Nester Bartolome what Cruze had said.11 In her testimony,
Cruze denied ever talking to Almodovar on December 22,
but indicated that she did see Almodovar on January 11 re-
garding a check for shoes. The voucher for the shoes was ad-
mitted into evidence and bears the date January 11. A check
for $30, dated January 22 and payable to Almodovar was
also admitted into evidence. I have generally credited the tes-
timony of Almodovar in this case. Cruze also was admittedly
a good witness, appeared competent and honest, and I gen-
erally credit her testimony in the case. It is difficult to re-
solve two conflicting accounts, and Cruze testified that when
she received the check, she personally delivered it to
Almodovar. Thus, to conclude that Almodovar got his dates
mixed up would be speculation, but I am convinced that, as
Cruze testified, she did not talk to Almodovar on December
22. Although I do not find that Almodovar purposely lied
about the incident which he claims occurred on December 22
with Cruze, I find that no such incident occurred on that date
and that thus there is insufficient evidence to support the al-
leged violation. I shall recommend that the alleged threat to
move operations outside of Puerto Rico as contained in para-
graph 6(e) of the complaint, and the appropriate portion of
Objection 1, be dismissed.
F. Removal of Lunch Van Onto Respondent’s
Premises (Issue 6)
The Union’s Objection 5 alleges that the Respondent,
‘‘around February,’’ caused a commercial lunch van to be
moved inside its premises in order to limit the employees ac-
cess to or contact by the Union’s representatives. If the Re-
spondent’s motives were in fact shown to be as alleged, the
Respondent’s actions in this regard would be a violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. This is no dispute in this case that
the Respondent caused the lunch van to be moved inside of
the Respondent’s property. It had been the custom of many
employees to go outside to the lunch van and purchase their
noon meal at the plant. When the campaign started, various
union officials would meet with the employees at the van to
discuss the advantages of the Union. The Union’s president
would also give speeches over loudspeakers from a white
van parked near the lunch van and, according to Personnel
Director Magly Cruze, many employees and neighbors com-
plained of the noise. However, the Respondent asserts that
the primary reason for having the lunch van moved was for
security reasons. The unrebutted testimony of Personnel Di-
rector Magly Cruze indicates that in early February, the Re-
spondent received telephone bomb threats ‘‘repeatedly,’’ as
well as personal threats to Cruze herself and another official
of the Respondent. Further, the vehicle of an employee who
was against the Union was vandalized. These events were the
subject of a memorandum to the employees, informing them
of the events themselves, and ensuring the employees that
the plant would remain a safe and healthy place to work. Ad-
ditionally, these events were reported to the police, who
commenced an investigation over the matter.12 Similar inci-
dents had also occurred at another business location 15 min-
utes away, where the Union was also conducting another or-
ganizational campaign. Thus, Cruze testified that the lunch
van was asked to move inside the plant premises, which was
surrounded by a chain link fence to a ‘‘secure place’’ and
‘‘for security reasons.’’ There is no evidence in the case that
employees were prevented from speaking to union officials
during their lunchhour by leaving the plant premises or by
speaking to union officials through the chain link fence. This
is also no evidence in this case to indicate that the Respond-
ent interferred with union officials in contacting employees
before or after work.13 In fact, several union meetings were
held after working hours. Whatever the Respondent’s mo-
tives were for accomplishing the removal of the lunch van
inside the plant premises, for noise or security reasons, or
otherwise, I find that the Respondent was not in any manner
motivated to take such action in order to limit or prevent the
access of their employees to the union representatives. I thus
shall recommend that Objection 5 be dismissed.
G. The Alleged Improper Electioneering (Issue 7)
Union Objection 11 alleges that the Respondent and its se-
curity guards, during the Board-conducted election on Feb-
ruary 24, engaged in improper electioneering near the line of
employees waiting to vote. If such were the case, such activ-
ity would be in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Be-
1248 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
14 The translator was Assistant Material Manager Aracelis
Vasquez. At the time of the speech, Vasquez was the production and
inventory clerk. She also testified in the case and her testimony will
be summarized subsequently.
cause of the threats and surrounding events as described ear-
lier, the Respondent virtually doubled its security staff up
until the election was over. Employee Luis Ramos testified
that on the day of the election their were ‘‘a lot of security
guards and all that,’’ and one of the guards that was ‘‘near
the line’’ was not in uniform. Employee Alexis Rivera testi-
fied that while he was waiting in line to vote in the election,
a security guard in civilian clothes was talking to other em-
ployees that were at the end of the line. According to Rivera,
a ‘‘gentleman’’ told him that he could not be there, but the
security guard remained where he was, and the agent from
the Board approached him again and ‘‘pushed him by the
shoulder,’’ again telling him ‘‘where he had to go.’’ Em-
ployee Jose Ayala was a union observer at the election.
Ayala testified that during the voting, a Board official
‘‘spoke strongly’’ to someone who was not a company em-
ployee, but was ‘‘close to where the voters were.’’ Ayala
added that the Board official ‘‘had to walk over and touch
him on the shoulder and tell him that he had to leave.’’ Em-
ployee Armando Ayala testified that while he was in line
waiting to vote in the election, ‘‘somebody from security’’
was in the passageway where the employees were waiting to
vote, and someone from the Board went to that person and
told him that he had to step outside. Ayala added that the
security guard ‘‘stayed a while, then he left.’’ There is no
evidence or testimony in the case regarding what the security
guard said to any employee in line.
From the foregoing testimony, and from the record, I can-
not conclude that the security guard engaged in improper
electioneering during the voting. In my opinion, at best there
is only scant evidence of the possibility of improper election-
eering, and I thus shall recommend that Objection 11 be dis-
missed.
H. The Election Day Threats of Discharge and Transfer
of Operations (Issue 8)
The Union’s Objection 1 alleges in part that on February
24 (the day of the election) the Respondent threatened em-
ployees with discharge and transfer of its operation outside
of Puerto Rico in order to induce them to refrain from sup-
porting or voting for the Union. In this case, there is abso-
lutely no evidence in the record that any such threats were
made on the date of the election. There is, however, a good
bit of evidence that the Respondent’s president, Lenny Flor-
ence, addressed the employees at a meeting 2 days prior to
the election. During their testimony, several employees made
reference to the speech of Florence, who himself did not tes-
tify in the case. Employee Louis Almodovar testified that
Florence spoke to the employees ‘‘two or three’’ days before
the election, adding that the speech was given in English by
Florence, with a translator present. Almodovar indicated that
he was in the back of the room and there was so much
‘‘murmuring’’ going on that he was unable to hear what was
being said. Employee Luis Ramos testified that Florence stat-
ed that in spite of rising costs in shipping and other costs,
they were able to keep the plant in Puerto Rico, rather than
moving it to Mexico or to Costa Rica. Ramos added that be-
cause of Florence’s ‘‘tone of voice,’’ he felt ‘‘intimidated.’’
Ramos also testified that the translator was not translating
what Florence was actually saying and was using some of
her own words.14 Ramos further indicated that at the end of
Florence’s speech, he stated ‘‘through the translator’’ that he
expected everyone ‘‘to vote no.’’ Ramos conceded that Flor-
ence did state that he was pleased with the operation in Puer-
to Rico, and that the Respondent was going to try to bring
in an additional operation involving processing. Merle Ran-
dolph was the chief financial officer for Syretch, the owner
of Wallace International. Randolph was also the treasurer of
Wallace International of Puerto Rico. Florence had come
from the United States to give his speech and it was Ran-
dolph who picked Florence up at the airport, brought him to
the plant, and took him back to the airport on the same day
(February 22). Randolph was also present during the speech
of Florence, which he indicated lasted 5 to 10 minutes. Ran-
dolph testified that they were concerned about ‘‘rumors’’ to
the affect that the Company intended to move the plant to
Puerto Rico, and that he discussed the same with Florence,
who then decided to clear the record and make sure that ev-
eryone was aware that there were no intentions whatsoever
of moving the plant. Randolph also testified that during his
speech, Florence indicated that the Company had received
offers from Mexico and Costa Rica to relocate the plant in
those countries, but that these offers had been refused and
‘‘never negotiated.’’ Randolph added that Florence also told
to the employees of plans to bring in new operations and
new skills to the Puerto Rico plant. Employee Aracelis
Vasquez acted as the translator during the Florence speech.
Vasquez characterized the speech as a talk to the employees
during a short meeting. Vasquez testified that Florence, in
his talk, mentioned that there were some rumors that if the
Union won the election, he would move the plant somewhere
else, and Florence stated that such a rumor was ‘‘false’’ al-
though the Company had been approached by other compa-
nies in Mexico and Costa Rica, but that there was no possi-
bility that the plant would be moved. Vasquez also indicated
that Florence told employees of plans for expanding oper-
ations in Puerto Rico.
As indicated earlier, no speech or threat was made on the
day of the election, February 24. Although for some un-
known reason, employee Rivera felt intimidated by the Flor-
ence speech, there is no other evidence of any such feelings
from any other witness in the case. The speech was attended
by approximately 140 employees. On the contrary, I find that
Florence did not in fact threaten employees with either dis-
charge or transfer of plant operations outside of Puerto Rico,
and thus I shall recommend that the portion of Objection 1
which alleges such threats be dismissed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent, on December 12, 1992, created an im-
pression among its employees that their union activities were
under surveillance in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
1249WALLACE INTERNATIONAL OF PUERTO RICO
15 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
16 If 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.’’
4. The Respondent, on December 12, 1992, threatened em-
ployees within unspecified reprisals and discharge because of
their union support and activities in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. The Respondent, on December 12, 1992, promised its
employees a wage increase to induce them to refrain from
engaging in union activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
6. The Respondent, on December 14, 1992, offered a bet-
ter paying job to employees in order to induce them to re-
frain from engaging in union activities in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
7. The Respondent has not otherwise violated the Act as
alleged in the complaint or objections filed herein.
8. The above actions of the Respondent found to be in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act affect commerce with-
in the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has committed unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I
will recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist there-
from, to post an appropriate notice, and to take other appro-
priate actions. I shall also recommend that the election held
in Case 24–RC–7529 be set aside, and a new election held
when the Regional Director deems that the circumstances
permit a free choice of a bargaining representative.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended15
ORDER
The Respondent, Wallace International of Puerto Rico, Inc.
and International Silver of Puerto Rico, Inc., San German,
Puerto Rico, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Creating an impression among its employees that their
union activities are under surveillance.
(b) Threatening employees with unspecified reprisals and
discharge because of their union support and activities.
(c) Promising employees a wage increase to induce them
to refrain from engaging in union activities.
(d) Offering better paying jobs to employees in order to
induce them to refrain from union activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Post at its plant and facility in San German, Puerto
Rico, copies of the attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’16
Copies of said notice on forms provided by the Regional Di-
rector for Region 24 of the Board, after being signed by the
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by it
immediately upon receipt thereof at and in all of its working
areas most frequented by its employees, and shall be main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in said con-
spicuous places, to include all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by it to ensure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director within 20 days from the
date of this Order what steps the Respondent has taken to
comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election conducted on
February 24, 1993, in Case 24–RC–7529 be set aside, and
a new election be held at such time that the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 24 of the Board decides that the circumstances
permit the free choice of a bargaining representative.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT create an impression among our employees
that their activities on behalf of Congreso de Uniones
Industriales de Puerto Rico are under surveillance.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with unspecified re-
prisals and discharge because of their support and activities
on behalf of the Union.
WE WILL NOT promise our employees a wage increase to
induce them to refrain from engaging in activities in support
of the Union.
WE WILL NOT offer a better paying job to employees in
order to induce them to refrain from engaging in activities
on behalf of the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
WALLACE INTERNATIONAL OF PUERTO RICO,
INC. AND INTERNATIONAL SILVER OF PUERTO
RICO, INC.