Xavier Zequeira

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 30, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 874 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

874 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
If a majority of the employees in both voting groups vote for the
Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to con-
stitute a single appropriate unit, and the Regional Director conduct-
ing the elections directed herein is instructed to issue a certificate of
representatives to the Intervenor for a unit consisting of the em-
ployees in the foregoing voting groups, which the Board, under such
circumstances, finds appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.
If a majority of the employees in only one of the voting groups vote
for the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated their desire
to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director
is instructed to issue a certificate of representatives to the Intervenor
for a unit consisting of the employees in such voting group, which
the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for pur-
poses of collective bargaining. If a majority of the employees in
either or both of the foregoing voting groups vote for the Petitioner,
such voting group or groups shall be represented by the Petitioner as
part of its existing unit, described above, and the Regional Director
will issue a certificate of results of election to that effect.
[Text of Amended Direction of Elections omitted from publica-
tion in this volume.]
MEMBERS HOUSTON and MuRDocK took no part in the consideration
of the above Amended Decision and Direction of Elections.
XAvnuI ZEQuEiRA and UNION INSIILAR DE TRABAJADORES DE LA CON-
STRUCCION, FLT, PETITIONER. Case No. 24-RC-480. January 30,
1953
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Roy J. Cohen, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is an individual engaged in the construction busi-
ness in Puerto Rico. He is currently building the Luis Llorens Torres
housing development in Isla Verde, the Toa Baja housing project in
Toa Baja, and a six-story structure at Vela Street in Hato Rey. It
is the employees at the latter site whom the Petitioner and Intervenor
seek to represent. During the 12-month period preceding the hearing
the Employer imported materials and equipment valued at approxi-
102 NLRB No. 83.
XAVIER ZEQUEIRA 875
mately $48,000, and his gross receipts were approximately $1,500,000,
all of which were receipts from operations within Puerto Rico.
The Employer contests the Board's jurisdiction. He asserts that
upon the ratification in 1952 of the constitution of the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico by the Congress of the United States, the political
status of Puerto Rico changed, and that the Board can no longer con-
sider it a "Territory" for the purpose of asserting jurisdiction, but
must treat it as a "State" of the United States. The Employer argues
that the Board would not assert Jurisdiction over its business if it
were conducted in a State of the United States.
By virtue of Public Law 6001 a procedure was established for the
adoption of a constitution by the people of Puerto Rico and for its
subsequent ratification by Congress. Upon the approval of such a
constitution by the Congress, it was provided that certain sections of
the Organic Law of Puerto Rico,2 the act establishing the government
of Puerto Rico and its relations with the United States, were to be
repealed. The constitution has since been written, adopted by the
people of Puerto Rico, and ratified by Congress, and the prescribed
sections of the Organic Act of 1917 have been repealed. That act, as
revised, is known as the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act .a
We have examined the Organic Act of Puerto Rico before and after
amendment, Public Law 600, the constitution of Puerto Rico, the act
of Congress ratifying the constitution,' and the applicable legislative
history, and we are satisfied that the National Labor Relations Act
applies to Puerto Rico as heretofore. For example, in the reports
which accompanied Senate Bill S 3336 (now Public Law 600) both
the Senate and House Committees stated that the section of the Or-
ganic Act of Puerto Rico concerning "the applicability of United
States law . . . would remain in force and effect," 5 and that Puerto
Rico's fundamental political, social, and economic relationship to the
United States would not change. Moreover, the language was re-
peated in the Senate report which accompanied the resolution pro-
posing ratification of the constitution.6 In addition, we find nothing
in the repeal of certain sections of the Organic Act, sections which
dealt primarily with the organization of the local government and
164 Stat. 319, 48 U. S. C. Supp. V Sec 731 (b) (1950).
939 Stat. 951 (1917) as amended , 48 U. S. C. Supp. III Sec. 733 (a) (1950).
648 U S. C. Supp. V Sec 731 (e) (1950).
4 Public Law 447, 66 Stat. 327 (1952).
Sen. Rep. No. 1779, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. 8321 ( 1950 ). H. Rep 2275, 81st Cong, 2d
Sess. 8867 (1950).
6 Sen. Rep. No. 1720, 82d Cong., 2d Sess. 7051. James P. Davis, Director, Office of
Territories, Department of Interior, appeared before the Senate Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs during hearings on the resolution approving the constitution , and stated
in response to a question from Senator Malone, "The organic act provides that they [the
basic laws of the United States] apply unless locally inapplicable , but in actual practice
practically all of the general legislation of the United States applies in Puerto Rico."
876 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the civil rights of the people of Puerto Rico, which would alter our
conclusion.
We therefore find that, even though it is no longer a "Territory,"
this Board has plenary jurisdiction over labor relations matters in
Puerto Rico, and that the Employer is engaged in commerce as de-
fined in Section 2 (6) of the National Labor Relations Act. The
Employer's contentions as to jurisdiction are rejected.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner and the Intervenor seek a unit restricted to the
Employer's operations on Vela Street in Hato Rey. The Employer,
while agreeing to the composition of the unit, asserts that its scope
should be broadened to include the Luis Llorens Torres housing
development project which is about five-sixths of a mile from the Vela
Street building. The predecessor of the Petitioner was certified
by the Board, pursuant to an agreement for a consent election, as
exclusive bargaining representative for all the Employer's produc-
tion and maintenance workers at the Llorens project, and the Employer
and Petitioner presently have a collective-bargaining agreement cover-
ing those workers. There is no bargaining history with respect to
the Toa Baja housing project. The Employer has a central office
at the Llorens project from which all purchases of materials and
supplies are made, and in which all clerical records and payrolls are
made and kept. There is some interchange of personnel between the
projects. Thus, a few employees have been permanently transferred
to the Vela Street project and others have been sent there temporarily
as replacements or additional help. In addition, employees at both
projects have the same starting and quitting times and work the same
number of hours a week. None of the employees gets vacations,
bonuses, or sick leave.
On the other hand, in addition to the physical separation of the
two projects, separate payrolls are maintained, a different storekeeper-
timekeeper is employed at each location, and each project is under
the supervision of a chief engineer and foremen who have the power
to hire, discipline, and discharge. Furthermore, the bargaining his-
tory at the Llorens project attests to the feasibility of that project
as a separate unit. Because of the physical separation, the mainte-
nance of separate payroll and other records, the noncentralized hiring
and discharging of employees , the employment of a storekeeper-time-
keeper at each site, and the bargaining history at the Llorens project,
the Board finds that the following unit is appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
AMERICAN CABLE & RADIO CORPORATION 877
All construction and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Vela Street project in Hato Rey, excluding professional personnel,
office clerical employees, timekeepers, storekeepers, foremen,
watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
However, under the circumstances of this case, it will not be inappro-
priate for the parties to consolidate the two groups in the event that
the Petitioner is selected by a majority of the Vela Street employees
in the unit described above.7
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
'See John Deere Harvester Works, 66 NLRB 1078-
AMERICAN CABLE & RADIO CORPORATION and COMMUNICATIONS WORK-
ERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER . Case No. 2-RC-4670. January
30, 1953
Order Denying Petition
On December 31, 1952, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of
Election in this proceeding. Thereafter, on January 19, 1953, coun-
sel for the Employer filed a petition for reconsideration of the Board's
holding that the hearing officer properly overruled the Employer's
objection to the presence of A. C. A. at the hearing on the asserted
ground that, although its officers had filed affidavits, A. C. A. was not
in compliance with Section 9 (h) of the Act, and also that he properly
rejected evidence in support of that contention.
The petition for reconsideration also asked that the Board order
A. C. A. stricken from the ballot in the representation election or, in
the alternative, that the Board order a postponement of the election
until such time as the Board had ruled on the compliance status of
A. C. A. in a current separate administrative proceeding. On Janu-
ary 22, 1953, the Petitioner, Communications Workers of America,
CIO, filed a memorandum in opposition to the Employer's petition,
urging the Board, in the interest of the employees involved, not to de-
lay the election. On January 27, 1953, A. C. A. filed an answer to the
Employer's petition.
The Employer's petition raises the question of the Board's authority
to investigate the truth and validity of the affidavits filed under Sec-
tion 9 (h) by the officers of the A. C. A. On January 27, 1953, in
American Communications Association v. Herzog, et al., Civil Action
No. 5827-52, the United States District Court for the District of Co-
102 NLRB No. 99.