International Shoe Corp. of Puerto Rico

INT'L SHOE CORPORATION OF PUERTO RICO 699 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, Second Floor, Commerce Building, 744 North Fourth Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Tele- phone No. 272-8600, Extension 3860, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. International Shoe Corporation of Puerto Rico and Sindicato Obrero Insular (S.O.L). Case No. 24-CA-1947. May 19, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER On December 9, 1964, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued his Decision in the above-entitled case, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci- sion. The Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a sup- porting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins]. 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 entire record in this case, including the Trial Examiner's Decision, the excep- tions, and the brief, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner and orders that the Respondent, International Shoe Corporation of Puerto Rico, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding, brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended ( 61 stat. 136), herein called the Act, was heard before Trial Exami- ner Eugene E. Dixon at Santurce , Puerto Rico, between August 27 and 31, 1964, pursuant to due notice. A complaint, issued by the representative of the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (herein called the General Counsel and the Board ) on August 6, 1964, and based upon charges filed by Sindicato Obrero Insular (S.O.I.), herein called the Union, on June 16 and July 31, 1964, alleged that 152 NLRB No. 74. 700 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD International Shoe Corporation of Puerto Rico, the Respondent herein , had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive bar- gaining representative of all the employees in an appropriate unit. In its duly filed answer, Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor practices . In addition Respondent pleaded several special defenses as follows: 1. The Union engaged in a strike in violation of the no-strike clause of the stipulation entered into between it and Respondent on September 2, 1963, and thus forfeited its status as collective-bargaining representative of Respondent's employees and demonstrated conclusively that it did not represent a majority of the employees in the unit certified. 2. The Union agreed to the participation in an election on November 22, 1963, conducted by the Department of Labor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and again conclusively demonstrated that it did not represent a majority of Respondent's employees. 3. The Union on several occasions during negotiations falsely claimed it had affiliated with different international unions for the purpose of intimidating Respondent to accept its contract proposal; confused the status of negotiations, and thus deliberately changed its demands on matters previously agreed to. 4. The Union does not come before this Board with "clean hands" because of its conduct and the conduct of its officers and agents contained in the Board Order and Court Decree entered into in Case No . 24-CB-477. At the hearing the General Counsel moved that all the above -pleaded special defenses be stricken from the answer . After hearing argument on the matter, I granted the motion as to defenses Nos. 2, 3, and 4 but allowed defense No . 1 to stand. Upon reviewing the matter at this time, I see no reason to reverse my ruling as made at the hearing. Special defense No . 1, of course , will be disposed of below. After the close of the hearing Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 (which is the English translation of the September 2, 1963, no-strike stipulation of the parties referred to above ) was submitted to me by agreement made at the hearing and is hereby made part of the record. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS International Shoe Corporation of Puerto Rico is a corporation of the Common- wealth of Puerto Rico, which together with two affiliated operating corporations, also incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico ( Manati Shoe Corporation and Island Shoe Company, Inc.,) constitute a single integrated shoe manufacturing enterprise located at Manati. The three corporations are operated through common officers and directors , and common labor relations policies are formulated, adopted, and enforced by said officers and directors for the employees of the three corporations. During the 12 months preceding the issuance of the complaint , which is a repre- sentative period, Respondent purchased goods and materials valued in excess of $100,000 which originated in places located outside the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. During the same period Respondent manufactured , sold, and shipped or caused to be shipped from its plant in Manati, Puerto Rico , products valued in excess of $100,000 to places located outside the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. At all times material herein Respondent has been an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION Sindicato Obrero Insular (S 0.1.) at all times material herein has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES On June 28 , 1963, the Union was certified by the Board as the collective -bargaining agent of all of Respondent's production and maintenance employees at its plant located in Manati, Puerto Rico, and at the plants of its corporate affiliates, the Manati Shoe Corporation and Island Shoe Company, Inc., also located in Manati , but exclud- ing all office clerical employees, professional personnel, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. INT'L SHOE CORPORATION OF PUERTO RICO 701 Thereafter, negotiations began during the course of which a strike took place that was settled on September 3, 1963, by an agreement calling for the inclusion of certain items in a collective-bargaining agreement apparently to be negotiated and providing that the question of union shop and checkoff was to be settled by an election con- ducted by the Department of Labor of Puerto Rico. The agreement also provided that: The Union and its members agree that starting from the date of this stipulation during all of the time prior to the execution of the contract being negotiated and afterwards during the life of said contract they shall not resort to a strike, nor shall they sponsor or aid strikes initiated by others, nor shall they engage in any act tending to interrupt, delay, interfere with, or obstruct in any way the production at the factories of the contracting companies, or resort to picketing, neither violent nor peaceful, and likewise the companies bind themselves not to resort to lockout during the same period because of any difference with the Union or its members. Thereafter further negotiations took place and the union shop checkoff referendum was conducted by the Puerto Rico Department of Labor with the majority of the employees voting against those provisions. Finally, on May 5, 1964, the Company through its counsel wrote to the Union as follows: We have just had a meeting with our client, International Shoe Corp. of P. R., at which time we discussed fully the stage of present negotiations with your Organization. We have decided to advise you that in our opinion it would serve no useful purpose to continue wasting time and efforts in further negotiations until we have at least definitely clear two basic points. 1. That we would like to obtain a ruling from the National Labor Rela- tions Board amending the present certification to include the Boilermakers or any other union to whom you may be affiliated as the proper bargaining representatives in these negotiations. This request is made because I feel very strongly that under the present circumstances, whereby you have brought to the bargaining table different organizations such as the I.U E., the Boot and Shoe-Workers Union, the Boilermakers, etc., my client is entitled to know for sure exactly who they are dealing with before they can conclude any definite agreement. Not only have some of these organizations been represented at different bargaining meetings , but you have also claimed at different times that you were in the process of affiliating with the Teamsters and now to confuse the issue further, Armando Sanchez from the Packinghouse Workers of America called representatives of the Company to inquire about the status of negotiations since there might be a possibility of an affiliation between SOI and the Packinghouse Workers of America. We feel that these reports of affiliations, places our client under extreme duress and has brought to the bargaining table tremendous amount of con- fusion that can only be cleared through a finding of facts or a recommen- dation from the National Labor Relations Board as to who the proper bargaining agent is. 2. It is the intention of our client to continue negotiations after this clari- fication from the N.L.R.B. is obtained only on the economic matters of the contract. They do not intend to negotiate or to consider further negoti- ations on the issues of the union shop or checkoff. Both of these issues were settled by an election which took place on Nov. 27 under the auspices of the Insular Department of Labor and in which the vast majority of the workers of International Shoe Corp. of P. R., voted against both the union shop and the checkoff provisions. Our client feels they will not only be betraying the confidence of their workers but will explicitly go against the results of the elections should they consider any further the union shop and the checkoff as a condition of the con- tract under negotiations. Notwithstanding the above letter, a meeting between the company and union negotiators took place on May 6. On May 11 the Union engaged in picketing at Respondent's plant but no employees participated and the plant continued to operate. This picketing occurred on only I day and terminated by 4 p.m. Thereafter, two or three other meetings apparently took place (the testimony is vague and somewhat 702 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD confusing about the dates and details) with a final meeting occurring on June 24. At the meeting Company Representative Benitez Carle told the Union "that there was no point in continuing the negotiations, that he did not want to sign a contract with [the Union] because [it] had filed a charge before the National Labor Relations Board 1 and that it was too late to continue negotiations." Carle raised the question at this time as to whether the Union any longer represented a majority of the employ- ees and said that the only way he would negotiate was "if [the Union] held another representation election . . . conducted by the Department of Labor and not by the Labor Board." No further meetings took place. Conclusions It is clear from the foregoing evidence that Respondent refused to bargain with the Union if not from May 5 certainly from June 24. The only question is whether the reasons the Respondent had for such action were sufficient to absolve it from any unfair labor practices. By my ruling at the hearing I rejected Respondent's defenses based on the referendum conducted by the Labor Department of Puerto Rico, the Union's claim of affiliation with various international unions, and the "clean hands" defense raised by Respondent. This leaves only the claim that the Union forfeited its status as collective-bargaining agent by reason of its having engaged in the above- described picketing on May 11 in violation of its September 2, 1963, agreement. Whether or not this instrument was a valid no-strike agreement binding upon the Union and whether or not it was breached by the Union on May 11 is unnecessary to decide. As pointed out by the General Counsel, "even assuming that it is equivalent to a full-blown bargaining contract with no-strike provisions and the breach of such provisions would relieve the employer of the statutory bargaining obligation, this would be true only so long as the breach continued. United Elastic Corporation, 84 NLRB 768, 773." Having found no merit in the defenses raised by Respondent to its refusal to bar- gain here and finding no unusual circumstances here which would permit the Respond- ent to challenge the majority bargaining status of the Union,2 I conclude and find that Respondent has refused to bargain with the Union thus violating Section 8(a) (1) and (5) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent as set forth in section I, above, have a close, inti- mate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices prohibited by Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take the usual affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record herein, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. International Shoe Corporation of Puerto Rico is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Sindicato Obrero Insular (S.O.I.) is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. All production and maintenance employees employed by Respondent at its plant in Manati, Puerto Rico, and at the plants of its corporate affiliates, the Manati Shoe Corporation and Island Shoe Company, Inc., also located in Manati, but exclud- ing all office clerical employees, professional personnel, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act constitute an appropriate bargaining unit'within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. By refusing to bargain in good faith with the above Union as representative of the employees in the above bargaining unit, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. 'The Union had filed a charge with the Board on June 16 charging Respondent with refusal to bargain 2 Ray Brooks v. N.L.R B., 348 U.S. 96. INT'L SHOE CORPORATION OF PUERTO RICO 703 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this proceeding, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I recommend that Respondent, International Shoe Corporation of Puerto Rico, Manati, Puerto Rico, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with the Charging Party as to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment covering employees in the unit herein found appropriate. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which appears necessary and appropriate to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request bargain collectively with the Charging Party as the representa- tive of its employees in the appropriate unit in good faith and in sincere effort to reach agreement and embody in a written and signed memorandum any understand- ing reached. (b) Post at its plants in Manati, Puerto Rico, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 24, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of the Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt, and be maintained for a period of 60 consecu- tive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em- ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 24, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps it has taken to comply herewith.4 It is further recommended that unless within the aforesaid 20-day period the Respondent notify the Regional Director, in writing, that it will comply with the Order recommended herein, the National Labor Relations Board issue an Order requiring Respondent to take the action recommended. 2If this Recommended Order Is 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. If the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the notice will be further amended by the substitution of the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" for the words "a Decision and Order." 'If this Recommended Order Is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 24, In writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has 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 Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Sindicato Obrero Insular (S.O.I.) as the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit described below. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of said Act. WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the above-named Union as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the bargaining unit described below with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody such an understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: All production and maintenance employees employed by us at our plant in Manati, Puerto Rico, and at the plants of our corporate affiliates, the 704 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Manati Shoe Corporation and Island Shoe Company , Inc., also located in Manati, but excluding all office clerical employees, professional personnel, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. INTERNATIONAL SHOE CORPORATION OF PUERTO Rico, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) 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, P.O. Box 11007, Fernandez Juncos Station , Santurce, Puerto Rico, Telephone No. 724-7171, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. The Leland Stanford Junior University and Local 617, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Peti- tioner. Case No. 20-RC-6157. May 19, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing in this case was held before Hearing Officer M. C. Dempster. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and Jenkins]. Upon the entire record in this case, and the briefs filed by the parties herein, the Board finds : The Petitioner seeks a unit of craft shop maintenance employees at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAG), a department of Stanford University. The appropriateness of the unit is stipulated and the sole issue before the Board is whether jurisdiction should be asserted over SLAC. We do not believe it should be. SLAC came into existence in 1961. Its purpose is basic research in high-energy physics and it provides a facility wherein electrons can be accelerated in a direct line and under controlled conditions to an end point where they bombard matter. Study of the effects on the target matter will comprise the primary research at SLAC. When completed in 1966 or 1967, the underground accelerator will be 2 miles in length and will constitute the largest such facility in the world. When the decision to attempt to erect such a facility was made by Stanford, approximately 400 acres of university land contiguous to, and approximately 2 miles from the center of, the main campus were 152 NLRB No. 73.