Edro Corp.

EDRO CORPORATION, ANASCO GLOVES, INC., ETC. 875 the power system and as the interference work essentially involves the rerouting and temporary removal of existing facilities without any material disruption to normal operations, it is more equitable and logical to use regular maintenance employees for interference work. In addition, the contractual rights of the maintenance employees under the Company-IBEW bargaining agreement and their demonstrated ability to do the interference work are of persuasive significance. We, therefore, find that the maintenance employees are entitled to perform the work in dispute. Accordingly, we shall determine the dispute by deciding that the Company's maintenance employees are entitled to perform the interference work at DPS-2-the rerouting and temporary removal of existing pipes-with regard to boiler No. 6; and that the pipefitters are entitled to perform tie-ins to existing pipes as well as the certified welding on this project. Our determination is limited to the particular dispute which gave rise to this proceeding. In making this determination, we are assigning the disputed work to the respec- tive employees represented by the IBEW and the Plumbers, but not to these labor organizations or their members. DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following determination of dispute, pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act: 1. Maintenance employees employed by Iowa Power and Light Com- pany, who are represented by Local 499, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform interference work-the rerouting and temporary removal of existing pipes-with regard to the boiler No. 6 project at Des Moines Power Station No. 2. 2. Pipefitters employed by Power Service Corporation, who are represented by Local 33, United Association of Journeymen and Ap- prentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the necessary tie-ins to existing pipes and certified welding with regard to the above- mentioned project. Edro Corporation, Anasco Gloves, Inc., and their agent , Cecilia Vega de Bravo and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of Amer- ica, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 24-CA-1662 and 2/-CA-1684. Sep- tember 07, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On June 3, 1963, Trial Examiner Sidney D. Goldberg issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor 144 NLRB No. 79. 876 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD practices and recommmending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Inter- mediate Report. He also found that Respondents had not engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recom- mended dismissal of these allegations. Thereafter, Respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Fanning]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report and the entire record in these cases, including the exceptions and brief, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following modification. A number of employees, apparently under the leadership of certain office clerks, met on November 1, 1962, after working hours on plant premises. Among those present were Supervisor Alvarez. There is no affirmative evidence as to the purpose of the employees in organizing the group,' or as to the discussions which took place at the meeting. Except for the one meeting, the group never met again. The Trial Examiner rejected the General Counsel's contention that the forma- tion of the committee was unlawful. But he did find that the presence of Supervisor Alvarez at the meeting constituted "at a minimum, interference with the employees' right to self-organization guaranteed by Section 7.' We do not agree with this conclusion. The Trial Examiner found that there was nothing in the record to indicate that the committee ever functioned as a labor organization. Neither is there any evidence as to the extent of Alvarez' participation, if any, in the affairs of the group. In these circumstances a finding that by Alvarez' presence at the meeting Respondents interfered with the statutory rights of em- ployees is not justified. Accordingly, we do not adopt the Trial Examiner's finding to that effect. ORDER The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, with the following addition : 'The Trial Examiner inferred that the committee was organized for antiunion reasons from the fact that in questioning General Manager Tamny under Rule 43(b), the General Counsel asked the following question: ". . . do you know if Georgina Acquino created some kind of committee of antiunion adherents at the plant?" To which the witness replied: "I heard about this, yes." In subsequent questions the General Counsel also referred to the "antiunion committee" without objection by Respondents EDRO CORPORATION , ANASCO GLOVES, INC., ETC. 877 IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed inso- far as it alleges that Respondents violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by Supervisor Alvarez' presence at the committee meeting of November 1, 1962. INTERMEDIATE REPORT STATEMENT OF THE CASE These consolidated proceedings, brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq., herein called the Act), are based upon a complaint I alleging that Respondents, who are engaged in the manufacture of gloves at Anasco, Puerto Rico, had violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 and by laying off two employees for union activities Respondents answered, denying the commission of the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. A hearing on the issues so raised was held before Trial Examiner Sidney D. Goldberg at Santurce and Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, on February 13, 14, and 21, 1963, at which all parties were represented and afforded an oppor- tunity to present evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to argue the case. A brief for Respondents has been received and considered. As set forth in detail in the findings of fact, I find that Respondents did restrain and coerce the employees in violation of their rights; that the layoff or discharge of employees Ramonita Rivera and Maria Teresa Antonpietri was discriminatorily motivated and that Respondents thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE CORPORATE RESPONDENTS Edro Corporation, herein called Edro, and Anasco Gloves, Inc, herein called Anasco, are Puerto Rican corporations jointly engaged at Anasco in the manufacture of gloves. They are affiliated with other glove manufacturing enterprises in New York and New Hampshire and some of the manufacturing processes involve successive operations by members of the group on the island and in the States. It is admitted that Respondents annually imported from the States goods and materials valued at more than $50,000 and, during the same period, sold and shipped, to points in the United States outside Puerto Rico, products valued at more than $50,000. I find that the corporate Respondents constitute an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. Respondents admit, and I find, that Cecilia Vega de Bravo, their production supervisor, is a supervisor and an agent of the corporate Respond- ents within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Although they entered into an agreement with the Union for a Board-conducted election, and participated therein,2 Respondents in this proceeding denied knowl- edge or information as to whether the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. Upon the evidence, I find that it is. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background: demand for recognition An organizing campaign among the employees of Edro and Anasco appears to have been begun during the summer of 1962 3 but it was conducted through visits to the workers' homes and there is no evidence that Respondents were aware of it 1 Charges were filed October 16 and November 16, amended charges were filed Novem- ber 21 and December 10, and a consolidated complaint thereon was issued December 12, 1962 On January 25, 1963, a third amended charge was filed in Case No 24-CA-1662 and, on January 28, 1963, the Regional Director issued the amended consolidated com- plaint upon which these proceedings were heard 2 Case No. 24-RM-90. 3 All dates are in 1962 unless otherwise specified. 878 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD until October 8 when representatives of the Union , claiming a majority, demanded recogmtion .4 General Manager Tamny stated that he would have to consult the main office in New York and that there was no point in discussing a contract until he had heard from New York. B. The meeting of October 8 On the same day, following his meeting with the union representatives and shortly before quitting time, Tamny held a meeting on the factory floor with the employees. According to his testimony, he told them, in his admittedly imperfect Spanish, of the visit from the union representatives, and outlined the procedural steps before the Board which he thought would be required for the Union to establish that it had the majority it claimed. To make certain that the employees understood him, he had Georgina Aquino, a clerical employee, repeat the substance of his talk in Spanish. The foregoing was, he thought, the gist of his talk, but would not deny that he might have said more. De Bravo, Respondents' general supervisor, was present and remembered more of Tamny's talk: She testified that Tamny, after telling the employees that the union representatives had claimed to represent a majority, said that he had demanded proof and that the Union had refused. In the light of these statements, I credit employees Aida Torres and Ramonita Rivera, who testified that Tamny also said that he wanted to know who had signed union cards and what motive they had in doing so since he would have obtained benefits for them without their going to a union. Moreover, Mrs. Rose Tamny conceded that she had told a Board investigator that the purpose of this meeting was "to find out if the employees wanted said Union." There were over a hundred employees at this meeting: Tamny did not direct his questions to any specific employee and nobody answered him. Directed generally to a large group, such questioning was obviously ineffective to assist Tamny in determining the accuracy of the Union's claim to majority representation,5 and it was not accompanied by any of the assurances against reprisals that the Board has found necessary to neutralize the coerciveness inherent in such conduct.6 In view of the Respondents' animus toward the Charging Union, demonstrated hereafter, and Tamny's statement that he would have obtained benefits for them without their going to the Union, I find that this speech was simply the first step in Respondents' campaign of opposition to the Union and that it was coercive in violation of Sec- tion 8 (a) (1) of the Act. C. Interrogation of employees Following the meeting of October 8, at which, I have found, Tamny addressed a general inquiry to the employees as to whether they had signed authorization cards for the Union, Respondents began interrogating the employees individually. Aida Torres credibly testified 7 that, as she passed the places of Monseratte Aragonese 'The complaint alleges interrogation "on or about September 27" by General Manager Roy Tamny and by Supervisor de Bravo Santos Vega testified that, one afternoon "dur- ing the latter part of September," Tamny "jokingly" said, "Did you sign a card some- where . . . for the Union?" and walked away without waiting for an answer. Tamny recalled that about that date he had a conversation with Vega about his chances for advancement in mechanics ; he did not unequivocally deny having asked Vega whether he had signed a union card but said he did not think he had. Vega's wife, also an employee, testified that "at the end of September" De Bravo "in a friendly tone" asked her if she had signed for the Union but did not wait for an answer. The date of both these incidents was fixed solely by the General Counsel's leading questions, not by the witnesses, and the September date has no other support in the record. The pattern of Respondents' activities, however, convinces me that these exchanges occurred about 2 weeks later and they are discussed below. 5 Compare S. H. Kress & Company v. N.L R B., 317 F. 2d 225 (C.A. 9) ; N.L.R B V. Larry Foul Oldsmobile Co., Inc., 316 F. 2d 595 (C.A. 7) "Blue Flash Express, Inc., 109 NLRB 591. P During her testimony, Aida Torres referred to some handwritten notes which, she stated, she had made at the time of these events From her testimony and that of others, it appears that, while these notes agree generally with the testimony, the sequence is some- times inverted and the dates not always precisely accurate. I conclude that these notes (introduced into evidence as Trial Examiner's exhibits) were made fairly close in time to the events of the week of October 8, but were probably written toward the end of that week. I have not relied upon these notes as direct evidence of the occurrences related in them but have considered them as supporting the testimony of Torres and others, including Mrs. Tamny, concerning these events. The witness Torres, notwithstanding her admission EDRO CORPORATION, ANASCO GLOVES, INC., ETC. 879 and Carmen Gonzales, she heard Patria Alvarez,8 the floorlady (concededly a supervisor), ask these employees whether they had signed authorization cards for the Union. The record does not show their answers, if any.9 Torres also testified that Alvarez asked her whether she had signed a card, stating that she had orders from Mr. and Mrs. Tamny to put this question to everyone "on the Edro side" of the plant. In footnote 4, above, I stated my belief that the questioning of Santos Vega and his wife took place, not at the end of September as put to them by the General Counsel, but after the meeting of October 8. One of my reasons for this belief is that, while I do not necessarily accept at its full value Tamny's testimony that, prior to the visit of the union representatives, he had no knowledge of the organizing effort, I accept his testimony to the extent that I believe he had no reason to think that the time had yet come for any action on his part. Another reason for my belief that it was at this time that Vega was questioned by Tamny and Mrs. Vega by De Bravo, is the similarity in the strangely light and offhand manner in which the employees were asked whether they had signed union cards. This questioning-like that by Tamny at the meeting-was, by the manner in which it was conducted, rendered ineffective to provide Respondents with informa- tion they might properly have sought: i e., whether the Union did, in fact, have the majority it claimed. Accordingly, I find that this widespread questioning was designed to impress upon the employees the fact that Respondents were keeping themselves fully informed concerning the Union's organizing campaign. The rea- sonably foreseeable effect of this conduct was to interfere with the employees' exercise of their guaranteed right of self-organization and it was in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. D. The meeting of October 10 From the evidence hereafter set forth, it is a fair inference that on either October 8 or 9, General Manager Tamny was in communication with company officials in New York. Moreover, after making the demand for recognition, Lucy Figueroa, the union organizer, changed her method of operation and, during the lunch recess, took a position on the street in front of the plant, fully visible from the office, where she and employee Aida Torres openly conferred with Respondents' employees. On Wednesday, the 10th, the employees were again called from their work into a meeting on the factory floor. This time they were addressed by Mrs. Tamny, general supervisor of Anasco, and by De Bravo, general supervisor of Edro. Tamny, general manager of the plant, was present. From the credited testimony of Aida Torres, corroborated by the testimony of Ramonita Rivera and the admissions of Mrs. Tamny and De Bravo, I find that at this meeting De Bravo demanded to know whether it was true that they wanted a union and why they had signed authorization cards. Both Ramonita Rivera and Juanita Gonzales, veteran employees, spoke up saying that they had signed cards and that a majority of the employees had done so. De Bravo answered by saying that the employees could choose between the Union and their jobs; that if they wanted a union there would be no jobs and if they wanted jobs there could be no union. that she was one of the leaders of the union campaign, I find to be a generally credible witness. s Respondents objected to the receipt of evidence concerning interrogation and other activities by Patria Alvarez on the ground that she was not one of those named in the complaint as agents of Respondents who committed the acts alleged as unfair labor prac- tices The nature of Alvarez' activity-interrogation-was the same as that alleged to have been committed by the named agents ; it occurred at the same time and was inter- woven with the conduct of those named. It was fully litigated, with Alvarez testifying that she had not interrogated the employees who testified that she had done so Respond- ents made no claim of "surprise" when the testimony concerning Alvarez was offered and, under the circumstances, they were not prejudiced by its acceptance . ( See Stokely-Van Camp, Inc. and Bordo Products Co, d/b /a Stokely-Bordo, 130 NLRB 869, 872-873; Thompson Manufacturing Co. Inc., 132 NLRB 1464.) Accordingly, the motion to strike such testimony is denied. 9 Monseratte Aragonese, testifying for Respondents, denied that Alvarez had asked her this question but I do not credit her denial . Carmen Gonzales also testified for Respond- ents that she had not been questioned but it was apparent that she did not comprehend the questions put to her and she subsequently admitted that she had recently been ill, that her mind was "not very good," and that she could not remember . The denials of Alvarez are also not credited. 880 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Mrs. Tamny then spoke, scolding the employees for having signed cards without first investigating. She said that there were good unions and bad unions and they "may be signing with racketeers." She said the Company wanted a union from the United States and named, in English, three unions which she said were "good" but said that the Union for which they had signed cards was "bad." One of the principal reasons for my acceptance of the foregoing version of the statements of Mrs. Tamny and De Bravo at this meeting is that Mrs. Tamny's remarks reflect the position-albeit exaggerated-of the corporate Respondents as shown in the interoffice memorandum from Edro's president, Jules A. Higier, to General Manager Tamny. The memorandum dated October 18 states that "the situation [i.e., upon recognition of the Union as the representative of the employees of the corporate Respondents] would be very difficult for us with a glove union here which is headed by the Independent" and in "St. Johnsbury, Vermont, we have the International Ladies Garment Workers Union." The memorandum also notes the position of Respondents "that now to add a third union would be too complex and could lead to serious dissensions" and "if we had our choice of a union, we would prefer either the local union . . . or the International Ladies Garment Workers Union . The memorandum, although carefully noting that "we have no choice in these matters . This is illegal and we must be very careful not to violate the law in any respects," also restates Higier's belief that the Union does not have "any signatures to speak of." Without disparaging Higier's statements that Respondents did not wish to violate the law, I am convinced that the strong views which he expressed concerning the undesirability of having the Charging Union represent Respondents' employees were reflected in the conduct of the management personnel in Puerto Rico. Since the determinative factors in this case are the acts of Respondents' agents in Anasco and the reasonably foreseeable consequences thereof, it is quite clear, and I find, that the statements of Mrs. Tamny and De Bravo constituted interference, restraint, and coercion of the employees in the exercise of their guaranteed rights and were, therefore, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. E. Impression of surveillance During the morning of October 12,10 Rose Tamny, according to her own testimony, passed the work station of Nancy Barbosa and said to her: "You had a meeting at your house." Mrs. Tamny's other version of this same incident, contained in the affidavit which she gave the Board's investigator and which she adopted as part of her testimony, is that, as she passed Barbosa she said to her, "So you went to a meeting last night." It is clear from the testimony that the reference was to a union meeting. Mrs. Tamny, on the witness stand, deliberately reenacted the manner in which she had spoken to Barbosa: it must be described as belligerent. From her performance on the stand I have no difficulty in finding, and do find, that, whether the statement Mrs. Tamny made involved Barbosa's attendance at a union meeting or permitting her house to be used for one, this assertion of positive knowledge was intended to give Barbosa the impression that her activities with respect to the Union were under surveil- lance. The making of statements for this purpose interferes with, restrains, and coerces employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act and violates Section 8(a) (l).11 Barbosa credibly testified that, after making the remarks discussed above, Mrs. Tamny asked her whether she had signed a union card. Upon Barbosa's negative answer, Mrs. Tamny replied that Mr. Tamny was very good and would not fire her if he learned that she had signed but that she, Mrs. Tamny, would. This threat was also a violation of Section 8(a) (1). Also on October 12, Aida Torres testified Alvarez told her that she had a message for her from Mrs. Tamny: That if there was something she wanted, she should ask Mr. Tamny for it and he would give it to her on condition that she would leave the lU In her pretrial statement, Mrs. Tamny placed this incident "in the afternoon hours" during the week October 8 to 12 but her testimony was that it occurred on October 12 about 9.30 a.m. Since It appears that the electric power was off all afternoon on the 12th and the employees were sent home, her direct testimony is accepted and the time is fixed accordingly 'IN L R B v. United Were & Supply Co , 312 F. 2d 11, 13-14 (CA 1) (decree entered April 2, 1963), enfg. as modified 137 NLRB 8. See also Knickerbocker Plastic Co, Inc, 96 NLRB 586; F W. Woolworth Co., 101 NLRB 1457; Idaho Egg Producers, 111 NLRB 93. 103, enfd 229 F 2d 821 (CA 9) ; Miller Electric Manufacturing Co , Inc , 120 NLRB 298, 316, enfd. (on this point) 265 F. 2d 225 (C.A 7) ; R. L Ziegler, Inc, 129 NLRB 1211, 1222, enfd. 298 F. 2d 671 (CA. 5) ; Ed White Junior Shoe Company, 141 NLRB 403 EDRO CORPORATION, ANASCO GLOVES, INC., ETC. 881 Union. She went to Mr. Tamny's office as directed but Mr. Tamny apparently could not understand why she had come, and she went back to work. I credit Torres' testimony 12 and Alvarez, although she denied having asked Torres whether she belonged to the Union, did not testify concerning this incident. Whatever her purpose might have been, Alvarez' statement was an effort to interfere with Torres' right to belong to the Union and was in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. F. The layoff of Rivera Ramonita Rivera had been employed by Edro, prior to October 12, for almost 6 years as a "mender." She had never been reprimanded and had never been laid off-not even during slack periods. At the meeting of October 10, as stated, Rivera was one of the two em- ployees who spoke to De Bravo, stating that they had signed union cards and that most of the employees had done so . After the demand for recognition on October 8, also as stated, the Union's organizer, Lucy Figueroa, began meeting with Respondents' employees on the street in front of the plant. As the employees were leaving for the day on October 11, it was raining and Figueroa offered Rivera a ride home. Rivera entered the car just as office employees Natividad Muniz de Rosado, Juanita Veliciana, and Georgina Aquino 13 came out of the plant.14 The next day, when the employees returned from lunch, the electric lights and power were off. After an hour, the employees were sent home for the balance of the day but De Bravo told Rivera that she was laid off indefinitely and that her work of mending would be thereafter performed by the other employees. On October 24, De Bravo, while being interviewed by a Board agent investigating the original charge herein, stated that she was going to recall Rivera. This was done later that week and she was assigned to production work. De Bravo testified that she did not speak to Mr. Tamny or Mrs. Tammy about laying off Rivera on October 12 but that they had discussed the matter previously. Respondents contend that Rivera was laid off because there was a policy of long standing to discontinue the use of "repairers" and to require that defects in gloves be remedied by the operators who had failed to perform their functions perfectly In support of this position , Respondents introduced the payrolls for the first week of May in each of the years 1958 through 1961. These show that in 1958 there were nine employees classed as "repairer"; in 1959 there were three; in 1960 there were three; and in 1961 there were two. On each of these payrolls, Rivera was listed as one of the "repairers" and she testified that she had become the only one about 6 months previously. There is, therefore, factual background for Respondents ' claim that Rivera was laid off because the mending work was being transferred to the individual operators. There is, however, nothing in the record to indicate that the final step in shifting the repair function would have occurred at this particular time 15 or that it would have been accomplished by the layoff of Rivera since some-if not all-of the other repairers had merely been shifted to other work . Under all the circumstances, I do not believe that it was the real reason for the layoff of Rivera. On the contrary, I 12 As set forth 4n footnote 8, above, Respondents objected to the acceptance of the testi- mony concerning interrogation by Alvarez That testimony and the motion to strike it, however, preceded Torres' testimony on this point and Respondents' counsel did not object to it. Even if the motion to strike the testimony concerning interrogation were to be re- garded as a continuing objection to any testimony concerning activities by Alvarez, this incident, like the interrogation , is sufficiently close in time and nature to those alleged in the complaint to have been committed by the named agents of Respondents , to justify, for the reasons set forth above, its consideration. 13 The employees Muniz and Aquino were active in the creation of the antiunion com- mittee hereafter discussed. 14 The street in front of the plant was also fully visible from the office and De Bravo, without fixing any particular time, admitted having seen the union organizers speaking with Rivera. is General Manager Tamny , in an investigative statement, said that the position of "repairer" had been eliminated because ". . . in order to improve the quality it was made necessary to have an operator-which is the girl who makes the original work-repair her own work to impress upon them the importance of the quality " Both he and De Bravo testified, however, that the number of repairers had been reduced because the quality of the output had improved and De Bravo testified that there was not much for Rivera to do. Rivera credibly testified that when she was doing the repair work "there was a lot of work to repair " 882 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD find that Respondents' real reasons for laying off Rivera were her adherence to the Union and their determination to show the other employees what would happen to an avowed union member. In reaching this conclusion I take into consideration Re- spondents' expressed opposition to this Union, the highly charged atmosphere at the plant during this week as shown by the general interrogation of the employees, Mrs. Tamny's remarks to Barbosa and the statement of De Bravo on October 10 that the employees would have to choose between the Union and their jobs. Rivera was one of the two employees who openly stated that they had joined the Union and, according to De Bravo's testimony, she also said that "those who signed cards needn't be afraid because nobody is going to eat them up." This defiance may well account for the fact that action was taken only against Rivera. The complaint casts the layoff of Ramonita Rivera-and the consequent discon- tinuance of the "repair" operation in the plant-as a reprisal against the employees for their union activities and a violation, therefore, of Section 8(a)(1). The com- plaint also alleges these same facts as discrimination against employees in violation of Section 8(a) (3). The circumstances surrounding the layoff of Rivera were fully litigated and I find that Respondents discriminated against her to discourage mem- bership in the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. There appears to be nothing in the record, however, to justify a conclusion that Respondents laid off Rivera to deprive the employees of the benefit of her mending services-as might have been the case if the employees were on piece rates and would suffer a diminu- tion in earnings if required to make repairs. Accordingly, I do not find this lay- off to be an independent violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and shall not recommend that the function of mending be again separated and reassigned to a person performing such services exclusively. G. Stanyon's "offer of benefit" The complaint alleges that, on or about October 18 , Time Study Officer Stanyon made an offer of benefit to an employee to induce her to abandon her activities on behalf of the Union. Aida Torres, an avowed leader of the union movement, testi- fied that on that date she was summoned to Stanyon's office; that Stanyon inquired about her schooling and her ability to type, to take shorthand , and to sketch. Stan- yon said he could transfer her to sketching work, but she said she preferred to re- main at her job. Stanyon then asked her if she knew why he had come to Puerto Rico in 1957: she said that she did not and at that point the interview ended. Torres further testified that she had been "in the forefront" of an effort by the Union to organize Respondents' employees in 1957, as she was in the current campaign. The foregoing testimony, measured against the allegation, fails to rise above the level of innuendo or suspicion and I shall recommend dismissal of the complaint to the extent of this allegation. H. The antiunion committee General Manager Tamny testified that on or about November 1, Georgina Aquino, an office employee, accompanied either by David Quintana or Alfred Padin,16 in- formed him that they had founded a "club" for the benefit of the Edro and Anasco employees but did not want him to know about it because he was not "supposed" to know anything about it. They did not relate it to union activity but at this time, of course, Tamny knew there was union activity going on.17 Natividad Muniz de Rosa do, a payroll clerk for Edro, also informed him-much later-that she was also a member. Mr. Tamny testified that he said nothing and that he gave no help of any kind to the committee. Muniz testified that the committee first met on November 1, in the plant after working hours, that she was designated its secretary and she named several clerical employees who were present. She also testified that Patria Alvarez, admittedly 19 The May 5, 1961, payroll shows Alfred Padin as a shipping employee ; David Quintana was identified as a handyman. 17 The question put by the General Counsel to Tamny was ". . . do you know if Georgina Aquino created some kind of committee of antiunion adherents at the plant?" and he re- plied: "I heard about this, yes." In several subsequent questions the General Counsel also referred to the "antiunion committee" without demur by the witness. While the facts contained in a detailed question answered by a mere affirmative often have little weight as probative evidence, this question was put to Mr. Tamny, an alert and intelligent witness, on cross-examination under Rule 43(b) and his affirmative answer effectively adopted the contents of the question. Accordingly, I find that Tamny knew that the function of the group was to counter the union activities of the employees. EDRO CORPORATION, ANASCO GLOVES, INC., ETC. 883 a production supervisor, was present and that it was agreed that the next meeting would be held at the home of Alvarez.18 Georgina Aquino said it would be best to have an employee committee but most of the talking was done by Santos Vega, a production employee who goes to the post office twice each day, and he referred to "a place which had closed down." 19 The committee appears not to have met again and, other than the meeting itself,20 the only material result of the formation of the committee was the publication of a mimeographed "bulletin" which was distributed the following week to the employees as they entered or left the plant.21 The allegation in the complaint is that the formation of this committee by Georgina Aquino, acting on behalf of Respondents, was a violation of Section 8(a)(1). There is evidence that Aquino spread the word of the committee meeting but the proof in support of her alleged supervisory status appears insufficient to justify a finding that she was a supervisor or otherwise an agent of Respondents. The presence, however, of Patria Alvarez, concededly a supervisor, at the meeting in the plant does make Respondents responsible for at least this much of the opera- tion of the committee and her presence constituted, at a minimum, interference with the employees' right of self-organization guaranteed by Section 7. Even if we assume that those who met did so because they were opposed to the Union and were exercising their right-also guaranteed by Section 7-not to join the Union, the presence of a management representative constituted coercive assurance that none of the employees attending would present any argument in favor of organization or have second thoughts on a prior commitment to an antiunion position. Although there is nothing in the record that would indicate that the committee ever functioned as a labor organization (and the complaint does not charge a violation of Section 8(a) (2) in any of the acts alleged as unfair labor practices) this presence of Respond- ents' representative at the meeting interfered with the rights of the employees in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act 22 I. The discharge of Antonpietri Maria Teresa Antonpietri was first employed by Respondents from about No- vember 1961 until January 1962, when she left. At the end of August or beginning of September in 1962, she spoke to De Bravo, who often took lunch at the home of Antonpietri's mother, about returning to work at Edro, and she was reemployed. According to the credited testimony of Antonpietri, on November 1, while she was working at her machine, De Bravo sat down beside her and handed her a piece of paper on which were written instructions that she find out whether Altagracia Rodriguez, a fellow employee, had signed a union card. After Antonpietri had read the note, De Bravo took it back and tore it into small pieces. About a week later, during lunch time, Antonpietri met Rodriguez at her mother's house, across the street from the plant, and asked her whether she was a member of the Union. Rodriguez answered that she was not. At 2 p.m. the same day, De Bravo asked Antonpietri whether she had found out anything for her "about the message she had written on the piece of paper." 23 Antonpietri answered that she had spoken with "her," meaning Rodriguez, but that she had not found out anything and De Bravo left without comment. De Bravo, although she testified at con- "Alvarez admitted being in the building while the meeting was on but stated that she was independently occupied some distance away. Her denial is not credited 10 The General Counsel, in offering the evidence concerning this meeting, contended that it was admissible because Georgina Aquino, one of the moving spirits behind the com- mittee, was a supervisory official and, therefore, an agent of Respondents Accordingly, this testimony was accepted subject to proof of such agency. It was after this testimony was so taken that Muniz disclosed the presence of Alvarez at the meeting Although I find that the supervisory status and, therefore, the agency of Aquino have not been estab- lished, Alvarez' presence there would make Respondents responsible for any improper statements made. 20 The evidence of what was said at the meeting is too vague to justify any finding of violation based thereon. 21 No copy of the bulletin was introduced into evidence and, although Antonpietri re- ferred to it as "antiunion," there was no definite testimony concerning its contents 22 See Walton Manufacturing Company, 126 NLRB 697, 700, enfd. 289 F. 2d 177 (C A. 5). 23 The house where Antonpietri lives with her mother is almost directly across the street from the plant and she testified that anyone who enters or leaves the house can be easily seen from the plant office. 727-083-64-vol. 144-5 7 884 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD siderable length and denied having questioned any employee about union member- ship, did not deny Antonpietri's testimony that she had instructed her to determine whether Rodriguez was a member of the Union and that she had questioned her after Rodriguez had been at her mother's house. I find that this incident occurred as testified by Antonpietri.24 It was either on the same day or the following day 25 that the members of the antiunion committee passed out their "bulletin" and handed one to Antonpietri as she returned from lunch at 12:30. She folded it and placed it on her machine. At the 2:30 "coffee-break" she went to her home across the street and, as she returned, it was raining. She carried an umbrella but, wearing sandals, her feet got wet. When she reached her machine, she sat down, took off her sandals and dried her feet with the "bulletin." As she did so, she saw Mrs. Tamny and Aquino watching her. Mrs. Tamny then went directly to De Bravo's desk and they conferred-looking at Antonpietri as they did so. Shortly thereafter, two boxes of gloves awaiting work at Antonpietri's machine were taken away from her. A supervisor named Vigo passed her machine and Antonpietri asked her to get some more work for her since she had almost finished with the work she had. Vigo went to De Bravo's desk and they conferred. At 3:30 Vigo returned and told Antonpietri that she had a message from De Bravo; that as soon as she finished the work on her table, she could go home because there was no more work for her. She finished the work she had and, as she was leaving De Bravo told her she could leave until further notice because there was "no more work." Antonpietri had not, to the date of the hearing, been recalled. Respondents contend that Antonpietri was laid off only because there was no work for her to do. It appears, however, that she worked on both cloth and leather gloves and that at least two other employees-not laid off-were performing similar operations. De Bravo also cast aspersions upon Antonpietri's competence but conceded that on both of Antonpietri's periods of employment she worked at least 3 months and that an incompetent employee is dropped before 3 months. De Bravo's denial that she saw the foot-drying episode was superfluous since there was no testimony that she had, but Mrs. Tamny, who, according to Antonpietri, did see it, did not deny its occurrence. In the highly charged atmosphere of the plant at that time,26 Antonpietri' s use of the antiunion bulletin to dry her feet could not be interpreted by Mrs. Tamny except as a gesture of contempt for the antiunion movement. Her layoff immediately following this incident, I find, was because of her exhibition of prounion support, as well as because of her apparent failure to accomplish the spying mission assigned her by De Bravo. It follows, therefore, and I find, that Antonpietri was discriminatorily laid off to discourage membership in the Union and that Respondents thereby violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. J. Mrs. Salerna's request for a copy of her statement to the Board agent It is not disputed that it was by direction of Respondents that Leonora Salerna wrote a letter to the Board office, requesting a copy of the statement she had given the Board investigator.27 If she is an employee entitled to the protection of the Act, such direction by her employer would violate Section 8(a)(1) thereof 28 Respond- 24 Interrogation of one employee concerning the union status or activities of another employee interferes with the right of all employees in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. Bon-R Reproductions, Inc., 134 NLRB 429. 25 Antonpietri was not certain whether the two occurrences were on the same day. Inso- far as they bear upon each other, they are sufficiently close in time even if a day apart. Conversely, the lapse of 1 day between them would not impair their interrelation 21 There is evidence that this tension continued well into November. In the middle of that month, according to employee Lydia Alvarez, Mrs Tamny asked her whether she had had a union meeting at her home. Alvarez denied that she had and, after asking Mrs Tamny the source of her information, demanded that the employees named by Mrs. Tamny be instructed not to meddle in her affairs Mrs Tamny did not deny this conversation. I find that it did occur and such interrogation violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 27 Respondents moved to dismiss the proceeding on the ground that the Regional Office had failed to provide certain supervisory personnel with copies of their statements in accordance with Section 6(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act. Respondents' counsel could cite no authority in support of this method of enforcing the Administrative Pro- cedure Act and I have been unable to find any. (Compare Rule 37 of the Rules of Civil Procedure which provides penalties, including dismissal of the action, for refusal to make discovery) The motion was denied. 28 Texas Industries, Inc ; et al., 139 NLRB 365; Hilton Credit Corporation, 137 NLRB 56. EDRO CORPORATION, ANASCO GLOVES , INC., ETC. 885 ents do not question this principle but dispute its applicability on the ground that Salerna was a supervisory employee. From the testimony, particularly that of Salerna and General Manager Tamny on this point, I find that Salerna was a "floor girl"; one whose principal function is to carry uncompleted work to the appropriate operators and to take it, when completed , to the next work station . She is also ex- pected to keep the operators supplied with thread and any other materials they may need to perform their work swiftly and efficiently . Respondents' effort to attribute supervisory functions to this employee was, I find, unsuccessful . De Bravo, her immediate supervisor, testified that she remains on the plant floor at all times and there is no credible evidence that Salerna's job required or included the exercise of any supervisory authority . Her task was to assist the operators-not direct them.29 The payroll designation of Salerna as "assistant supervisor " really means, I find, that she was an assistant to the supervisor (De Bravo ) rather than a supervisor merely subordinate in rank. Accordingly, I find that the action of Respondents in requiring Salerna to request, for their use, a copy of her statement to the Board agent was in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The conduct and activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondents set forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com- merce among the several States, including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in certain unfair labor practices, burdening and obstructing commerce , I shall recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and, since the unfair labor practices found go "to the very heart of the Act" 30 and constitute a threat of other unfair labor practices in the future, I shall recommend not only that Respondents take certain affirma- tive action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act but that they cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights of their employees guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. Having found that Respondents discriminated in regard to the tenure of employ- ment of Ramonita Rivera and Maria Teresa Antonpietri in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act, I shall recommend that Respondents offer Maria Teresa Antonpietri immediate and full reinstatement to her former or a substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make Ramonita Rivera and Maria Teresa Antonpietri whole for any loss of earnings that each may have suffered because of the discrimination against her, such backpay to be computed in the manner established by the Board in F. W . Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest thereon in the manner prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondents Edro and Anasco constitute an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act and Respondent Cecilia Vega de Bravo is their agent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By interrogating their employees concerning their union membership , activities, or sympathies, by threatening them with loss of employment or other reprisals if they engage in such activities, by making statements designed to create the impression that they have the employees' union activities under surveillance and by compelling an employee to request a copy of the statement given to a Board agent , Respondents have interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. 29 On the May 5, 1961, payroll, Salerna is shown to have earned $26 for 40 hours as against $30, $32, and $38 for operators who also worked 40 hours. 30 N.L.R B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F. 2d 532 (C A 4). 886 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4. By discriminating in regard to the tenure of employment of Ramonita Rivera and Maria Teresa Antonpietri, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organiza- tion, Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 6. Respondents did not, through Time Study Officer Stanyon, make a promise of benefit to an employee to induce her to abandon her activities on behalf of the Union; Respondents did not induce a group of employees to form an antiunion group to combat the employees' union activities and Respondents did not engage in unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint except as found herein. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pur- suant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, it is recom- mended that Respondents, Edro Corporation, Anasco Gloves, Inc., and their agent, Cecilia Vega de Bravo, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interrogating their employees in an unlawful manner concerning their mem- bership or interests in and activities on behalf of the Union or any other labor or- ganization; threatening their employees with loss of employment or other reprisals because of their union activities; making statements of knowledge of the holding of union meetings or the persons in attendance at such meetings designed to create the impression that they have the employees' union or concerted activities under sur- veillance; and compelling employees to request copies of statements given to Board agents. (b) Discouraging membership in the Union, or in any other labor organization of its employees, by suspending, laying off or discharging their employees or by dis- criminating in any other manner in regard to their hire, or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing their employees in the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Union or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collec- tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement re- quiring membership in a labor organization as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Maria Teresa Antonpietri immediate and full reinstatement to the position she held at the time she was laid off, or to an equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority and other rights and privileges. (b) Make Maria Teresa Antonpietri and Ramonita Rivera whole for any loss of pay either of them suffered as a result of the discrimination against them in the manner set forth above in the section entitled "The Remedy." (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order. (d) Post in their office and factory at Anasco, Puerto Rico, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 31 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-fourth Region, shall, after being duly signed by Respondents' representatives, be posted by them immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main- tained by them for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to their employees are customarily posted. Rea- sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. sI In the event this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Decision and Order." EDRO CORPORATION, ANASCO GLOVES, INC., ETC. 887 (e) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty -fourth Region, in writing, within 20 days from receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what steps Respondents have taken to comply herewith.32 3. It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges an offer of benefit by Time Study Officer Stanyon to induce an employee to abandon her activities on behalf of the Union and insofar as it alleges that Respondents, through Paymaster Aquino, induced employees to form an antiunion club or group to combat the Union's organizational efforts. 32 1f this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director , in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondents have taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate our employees , individually or collec- tively, concerning their union membership , activities, or affiliations. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with loss of employment or other economic reprisals if they designate Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, as their representative for the pur- pose of collective bargaining. WE WILL NOT make statements of knowledge of the holding of union meetings or the persons in attendance at such meetings designed to create the impression that we have under surveillance the union activities of our employees or any of their concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or mutual aid or protection. WE WILL NOT compel our employees to request copies of statements given to Board agents. WE WILL NOT, by suspending , laying off, or discharging any employee or in any other manner discriminating in regard to the tenure of employment or any term or condition thereof, discourage membership in Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. WE WILL offer Maria Teresa Antonpietri immediate and full reinstatement to her former or a substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and benefits, and we will make Maria Teresa Antonpietri and Ramonita Rivera whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of our discrimination against them. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming members of Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement re- quiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as author- ized in Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. EDRO CORPORATION , ANASCO GLOVES, INC., Employer. Dated--------------- ---- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) NOTE -We will notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of her right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. 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. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1506 Ponce de Leon, Stop 221/2 , Santurce, Puerto Rico, Telephone No. 723-3200 , if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.