Sindicato Puertorriqueno de Trabajadores

538 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL Sindicato Puertorriqueno de Trabajadores , affiliated with Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO and Cayey Industries, Inc., formerly known as Gor- donshire Knitting Mills, Inc. Cayey Industries, Inc., formerly known as Gor- donshire Knitting Mills, Inc., Finrico, Inc., Cayey Spinning Mills, Inc., Bonita, Inc., Tinto, Inc., Rizotex, Inc., Malcolm Knitting Mills, Inc., Gor- don Realty, Inc. and Sindicato Puertorriqueno de Trabajadores , affiliated with Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases 24-CB-693 and 24-RC-3772 July 13, 1970 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION BY MEMBERS FANNING , MCCULLOCH, AND BROWN On January 7, 1970, Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en- gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and de- sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner 's Deci- sion. The Trial Examiner also found merit in cer- tain objections filed by Employer Gordonshire to an election conducted in Case 24-RC-3772 and recommended that the election be set aside and that a new election be conducted. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions together with support- ing argument;' Employer Cayey ,z Gordonshire's new owner , filed cross-exceptions and an answering brief; the General Counsel filed an answering brief and the Respondent filed an opposition to Cayey's cross-exceptions ; and Cayey filed a reply to the General Counsel 's answering brief.' ' The General Counsel also filed an exception confined to the failure of the Trial Examiner to require that the Not,ce to Members be posted by Respondent in Spanish as well as in English As many of the employees in- volved in this proceeding are Spanish speaking, we shall modify the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner in this respect ' After issuance of the Trial Examiner's Decision, Cayey Industries, Inc , became the new owner of Employer Gordonshire's enterprise ' Cayey seeks a dismissal of the petition in the representation proceeding on the ground that it is not a successor to the original Employer or, alterna- tively, a hearing on the issue of its successorship The critical issue raised by Cayey is whether, since its assumption of ownership, the relationship between it and its employees has undergone such change as to eliminate the question concerning the representation of the production and main- tenance employees in the collective-bargaining unit previously found ap- propriate On the basis of the facts related by Cayey with respect to the na- ture of its present operations and personnel complement, it appears that no such change has taken place Nor do Cayey's plans point to any significant LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel 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 Trial Examiner's Decision, the various documents filed thereafter, and the entire record in this proceeding, and hereby adopts the findings, conclu- sions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein.4 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Respondent, Sindicato Puertor- riqueno de Trabajadores , affiliated with Amalga- mated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, its officers , agents, representa- tives, successors , and assigns , shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as modified herein: 1. Change the first sentence of paragraph 2(a) to read as follows: "Post at its business office and meeting halls, in Cayey, if it has any , in both Spanish and in English, copies of the attached notice marked `Appendix."' 2. In the last indented paragraph of the Appen- dix attached to the Trial Examiner 's Decision, change "Gordonshire Knitting Mills, Inc ., or any of its affiliated companies" to "Cayey Industries, Inc." IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held on June 12, 1969, in Case 24-RC-3772, be, and it hereby is, set aside, and said case is hereby re- manded to the Regional Director for Region 24 to conduct a new election. change in the basic business operations engaged in by Gordonshire Texas Eastman Company, et al, 175 NLRB 626, Inter-Mountain Dairymen, Inc , 143 NLRB 782, 783-784, New Laxton Coal Company, 134 NLRB 927, 928 We therefore find that Cayey is a successor to Gordonshire and that a question concerning the representation of the employees now employed by Cayey continues to exist and we shall remand the pending representation case to the Regional Director for the holding of a new election, as recom- mended by the Trial Examiner ' Our dissenting colleague agrees that the considerable violence which here characterized the postpetition strike constituted unfair labor prac- tices, but not that the election should be set aside The rule of Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co , 138 NLRB 453, we believe, has served well in insuring proper election atmosphere by considering all postpetition conduct as possible grounds for setting aside an election We note also that the earlier Southdown Sugars, Inc , 108 NLRB 114, relied on in the dissent, involved only one incident of violence in the preelection strike 184 NLRB No. 56 SINDICATO PUERTORRIQUENO DE TRABAJADORES [Direction of second election 5 omitted from publication. I MEMBER BROWN , dissenting in part: I do not agree with the majority opinion that the election held herein on June 12, 1969, should be set aside. My colleagues rely in part on the Union's con- duct during the strike. I agree with them that the Union should be held in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act on that account, but it does not follow that the Union thereby prevented the employees from making the sort of uncoerced cho- ice in the election which is their right. The Union's conduct was related directly to the purposes of the strike; it was not aimed at any election which might be held in the future. Neither was it of the character that would inevitably coerce employees in their choice of a bargaining representative in any future election. Nor do I find it reasonable to con- clude, especially in the circumstances of this case, that the misconduct was such as would likely'have a coercive impact on any election. The last of it oc- curred on May 19 and the election was not held until June 12. And the stipulation for an election, signed on May 20, was agreed upon by all the parties as the peaceful means of resolving their un- derlying representative differences. Considering all these circumstances, namely, that the Union's conduct was related directly to the strike and not the election, the hiatus between the strike and election, and the parties' decision, with full knowledge of all that had transpired, to let the election results speak for everybody, I cannot be- lieve that the employees to whom the final decision was left voted in an atmosphere which rendered im- possible or improbable a free and untrammelled choice.6 I also reject my colleagues' conclusion that there were preelection misrepresentations by the Union which require setting aside the election. With respect to the radio announcements, circulars signed by those allegedly misquoted over the radio had previously been mailed to all the employees so that any employees who may have heard the broad- casts were unlikely to have been misled by them; besides, I find no real variance between the views attributed to the signers of the circulars over the radio and the views expressed in the circulars. As for the reference to a plant in Pennsylvania with better working conditions than prevailed at the Company's plant in Puerto Rico, the evidence simply fails to disclose any misrepresentation that could reasonably be expected to have had a signifi- cant impact on the election. Accordingly, the Union having won the election, 539 it is entitled to be certified as representative of the employees involved. ' In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their ad- dresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior Un- derwear Inc, 156 NLRB 1236, N L R B v Wyman-Gordon Co, 394 U S 759 Accordingly , it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list, con- taining the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 24 within 7 days after the date of issuance of the Notice of Second Election by the Regional Director The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances Failure to comply with this reequirement shall be grounds for setting aside the elec- tion whenever proper objec tions are filed 6 Southdown Sugars , Inc , 108 NLRB 114 TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ALBA B. MARTIN, Trial Examiner: This con- solidated proceeding, all parties represented by counsel, was heard before me in Hato Rey, Puerto Rico, on September 15-18, 1969.' The proceeding involves alleged violations of Section 8(b)( I )(A) by the Union (by mass picketing, blocking en- trances of cars and trucks, following a truck, violence, threats, and other acts), and objections to alleged conduct affecting the results of an election held June 12, 1969. The issues in the CA case and the RC case overlap considerably. After the hearing all parties filed helpful briefs which have been duly considered. Upon the entire record and my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The eight companies named above in the caption of the RC case are affiliated corporations organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico which compose a single-integrated manufac- turing enterprise at the town of Cayey, Puerto Rico, where they are engaged in the production of knitted goods for sale and shipment to points located in States of the United States. All of the above-named corporations operate plants under the centralized control and direction of Malcolm Gor- don, who is president and general manager of each corporation. Labor relations policies are formu- lated and enforced by said Malcolm Gordon for the employees who work in all the plants. For the pur- poses of this proceeding all of said companies con- stitute a single employer which hereinafter is referred to as the Company. ' Gordonshire Knitting Mills, Inc , filed the charge on May 5, 1969, and the amended charge on June 24, 1969 540 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD During the year 1968, a representative period, the Company purchased and had shipped to its plant located at Cayey, Pureto Rico, materials and equipment necessary for the conduct of its business which were valued at more than $50,000. During the same period it manufactured, sold, and shipped to points located outside of Puerto Rico knitted goods valued at more than $50,000. Respondent admitted and I find that the Com- pany is, and at all times material herein has been, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.' II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Sindicato Puertorriqueno de Trabajadores af- filiated with Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, herein called the Union and Respondent Union, is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Ill. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND INTERFERENCE WITH THE ELECTION A. The Union Takes Over the Strike The Company operates in about eight buildings along one street on the edge of Cayey called Indus- trial Avenue. Prior to the events herein its em- ployees were not represented by any union. On April 30 and May 1 the employees on two shifts in one building spontaneously struck over a grievance. Several unions showed interest in the situation. Beginning almost immediately the Union offered its assistance and began to take over direction of the strike, with the apparent willingness of the strikers. Manuel Rosario, an organizer for the Union who lives in and is a native of Cayey, arrived on the scene shortly after the first shift went out. Peter Huegel, a union representative whose office is in San Juan, some 45-50 miles away, arrived a few hours later on the morning of May 1. They and a third union organizer from San Juan began im- mediately to assist the strikers' existing "settlement committee" and to form new committees, Felix Bonilla , an employee leader of the strikers, continu- ing on as president of the original committee. After lunch May 1, Huegel and others obtained an inter- view with William Bales, a 'plant manager, and de- manded recognition- of the Union which was refused. Huegel credibly testified that "We then proceeded to the telegraph office with a committee and sent a demand by wire to the Company." This telegram, dated 4:01 p.m. May 1, claimed the Union represented a majority of the production and maintenance workers and requested recognition of the Union. The telegram was signed by nine strikers including Bonilla and Jorge Hernandez, who became chairman of the picketing committee, and ' 29 U S C Sec 151, et seq '' The committees included a picketing committee , a food committee, a also by Manuel Rosario as a representative of the Union. Although Huegel did not sign this telegram, I find from his testimony that he was among those who sent it in the name of the Union. Prior to April 30 the Union never claimed bargaining rights. On May 2 the Union filed a petition in the Board's Regional Office in San Juan claiming to represent a majority. Huegel's testimony showed that he was among those who decided to make this move, although he did not sign the petition. The strike lasted until on May 20 the Company and the Union signed a stipulation for certification upon consent election. Huegel signed for the Union. Strike activities were directed from a tent-like structure, herein sometimes called the tent, which served as strike headquarters, situated next to the vehicle entrance to Respondent's office building and across the street from the vehicle entrance to Respondent's "Finrico" building. Manuel Rosario and Peter Huegel were very active in the direction of strike activities, including the picketing, and the direction of the various strike committees.3 Huegel had an especial status. He had only recently come to Puerto Rico from the Continental United States, he spoke but little Spanish, and he was widely referred to by the strikers as "the American." Although Respondent attempted to continue operations, it had little success, and substantially all of its approximately 800 employees were not work- ing within a week. B. Mass Picketing and Blocking, Violence, Threats Undisputed and credited evidence proved that on numerous occasions on May 5, 13, and 19, the strikers engaged in mass picketing and blocking tactics and that there were some threats and violence. Huegel and Rosario were at the strike scene on each of those days. On May 5 at noon a group of about 35 strikers formed a circle and blocked a car exiting from the office building with two office workers for lunch. The police made way for the car and it went out. Strikers told the occupants they were not going to come back. After lunch as the two office workers and a third approached the pedestrian entrance to the office building by foot, an identified striker shouted, "Come over here and don't let them in." Thereupon a mob of up to 60 rushed over from the strike headquarters and swarmed around the en- trance and tried to block it. Another office worker who came from inside and opened the gate to assist their entry was grabbed by an identified striker by the shirt, which tore, and was hit in the lip by a fist hard enough that the lip bled. An identified striker, and others, shouted, "Don't let them in." After the office workers finally got inside the gate and were about to the entrance door to the building, an clearing committee , a health committee , a propaganda committee, and others SINDICATO PUERTORRIQUENO DE TRABAJADORES identified striker threw a bottle which smashed on the sidewalk just in front of the door , a piece of the flying glass hitting one office worker on the hand. Towards the end of this incident first Rosario and then Huegel arrived on the scene from the tent. Ac- cording to the credited testimony of Jorge Santiago, Rosario was with the mob before the bottle was thrown. On the witness stand Rosario did not deny his presence at this incident , and Huegel admitted being in the area and arriving just after it; and they testified nothing about trying to prevent what hap- pened or in any way disavowing it after the oc- curence. According to credible and uncontradicted testimony , on May 5 a group of four or five strikers accompanied by Manuel Rosario walked down In- dustrial Avenue carrying a company ladder bent more than half way back on itself. One of the strikers said within the hearing of the Company's maintenance director , " This is what we 're going to do to the rest of it." On May 5 , also, occurred the loudspeaker in- cident . Maintenance Director Guzman had securely mounted his own two loudspeakers on the top of a car. The car left the administration building and was proceeding slowly in front of the strike headquarters tent . A group ran towards the car and an identified striker and picket jumped on the car and the loudspeakers came down with him. Rosario, who saw the incident from the tent, testified that the striker-picket looked as though he was going to fall and he struck out his hand and the loudspeakers came off. Upon the preponderance of the evidence in the entire record it seems probable to me, and I find, that the striker -picket inten- tionally pulled the loudspeakers off the car . Rosario did nothing to repudiate this act of violence to and destruction of property. On May 5 as a company supervisor of research and development and a company industrial en- gineer returned from lunch at 1 p.m . intending to enter the office building , they were prevented from doing so by a mass of 40 to 50 pickets confronting them at the gate . The strikers stood in front of the car, jolted it, yelled "Go home , go home," and banged the car with their fists and picket signs sticks. Finally the car backed up and left the scene. C. The Truck Incident The Company planned to take a trailer load of goods from the Finrico building to the San Juan air- port on May 12 but decided not to do so because of the number on the picket line and the fear someone might get hurt . Instead it did so the following day. On May 13 as the truckdriver was gassing up in Cayey, two employees warned him that if he moved the "truck " he would have to suffer the con- 541 sequences . As he entered the Finrico drive a female striker wearing pants told him that on the strength of her pants he would not go out. The driver regularly made the 44 -mile run to the San Juan airport and it usually took him 1-1 /2 hours or less depending on traffic conditions. On May 13 it took 3 hours, from 9 a . m. to noon. As the truck left the Finrico building the police had to open up the 40 to 50 massed pickets so the truck could move . Huegel jumped onto the left running board and rode to a main intersection, beating on the driver 's window and shouting, "Stop the truck ." He shook his finger at the driver. As he jumped off the truck4 he said to the company su- pervisors in the next car behind the truck , " You've had it now , we're going to get you." At least a half- dozen striker and union cars followed the truck, in which were Huegel , Rosario, Bonilla, Jorge Her- nandez, and others. The road to San Juan is a dangerous mountain road under the best of driving conditions . On this occasion the danger was greatly augmented by the harassing tactics of the strikers and Huegel. The su- pervisor riding alongside the driver in the truck credibly testified that " It's a pretty rough road and the driver was very uncomfortable. He was afraid we might fall off the cliff." An identified striker threw a stone from a passing pickup truckload of strikers, which broke the glass on the driver's left and sprayed glass on the laps of the driver and the supervisor . An identified striker threw a bottle at the truck as it passed a gasoline station . Several cars zig-zagged on the road in front of the truck, during which several cars passed it . Loudspeakers on one car were shouting vulgar epithets. One of the cars was driven by the chairman of the picket- ing committee , Jorge Hernandez . A car or truck passing the truck tried to edge if off the road. A car actually sideswiped the left front fender of the su- pervisor 's car just behind the truck . From another identified striker's car nails or tacks were thrown. Huegel 's car somehow moved to just behind the truck and as the truck and Huegel stopped for a red light two strikers from Huegel's car got out and un- tied the ropes which held the tailgate of the truck in place, thereby tending to cause the load to fall off. Finally , the . truck stopped by a policeman. Huegel also stopped and , according to the credited testimony of Supervisor Rios , who was riding in the truck, Huegel told the policeman that he , Huegel, was an executive of the Company . Although Huegel denied this Huegel was not an entirely credible wit- ness and his memory had convenient lapses . For in- stance he did not remember that he had given a Board agent a pretrial affidavit under oath; and he did not remember whether the policeman "took him in," something which , it seems to me, would be easy to remember if it happened. With police pro- tection the truckload reached the airport without further incident. 4 His pretrial affidavit falsely said he was pushed off 542 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL Huegel testified he followed the truck to make certain there would be no problems. His own ac- tions on that trip belie this testimony. Another as- serted reason was to learn the destination of the goods, to be able to inform the receivers of the goods that it was struck work and ask them not to receive any more goods. This might have been a proper mission for one car but it surely did not require six carloads of strikers (including all the strike leaders) and the dangerous tactics they in- dulged in. The entire record proved, and I find, that he and the other strike leaders and strikers pursued the truck and harassed it in furtherance of the Union's policy of winning the strike and gaining bargaining rights from the Company. D. Events of May 19 On May 19 the Company tried to get the plants in operation again by having supervisors drive to the plants the employees who wanted to work. Respondent Union thought of it as a "back-to-work movement," and opposed it with mass picketing, blocking, threats, vulgar and abusive language, and violence. Overwhelming credible and uncontradicted evidence proved that several carloads of employees and/or supervisors trying to enter several of the plants were prevented from getting in until police opened up the 40 to 50 massed pickets. Meantime the massed pickets swarmed over the cars and rocked the cars as though to overturn them. They hit them with the sticks of their picket signs and their fists and their umbrellas. At least one car was dented. They jumped on the cars and shook them. In at least one instance the chairman of the picket committee, Jorge Hernandez, opened the door of a car and tried to pull an occupant out. In one in- stance some pickets got on top of the car. The pickets called the occupants filthy names. They threatened one car as it entered a gate that it would not come out. Early that morning one car passed a heavily blocked gate and turned in at another gate which was not heavily picket. As the occupants were un- loading, a large stone hit the top of the car, coming within inches of entering it. As the car exited a large crowd which included Union Representative Huegel blocked the exit. Huegel approached the car and talked abusively and very vulgarly to the driver. Then Huegel made an opening motion with his hand and arm and the pickets dispersed, allow- ing the car to pass through. Early that morning Peter Huegel's wife, who was among a mass of 40 or 50 pickets at one gate, assisted in preventing the entrance of a car by standing in front of the car with her hands spread out on the car, and by almost draping herself over the hood of the car. Then Mrs. Huegel either inten- tionally or unintentionally fell down to the ground and was on the ground close to the left front wheel of the car. A policeman picked her up In order to LABOR RELATIONS BOARD avoid problems and violence the driver of the car abandoned his effort to enter and drove away. Shortly thereafter Mr. and Mrs. Huegel and the driver of the car were at the police station "testify- ing" about the incident. No charges were filed. Also early that morning, probably prior to the above incident, Mrs. Huegel tried to prevent a com- pany car from leaving a gate by walking back and forth in front of it with her arms crossed. When a policeman touched her elbow she said, "Don't touch." This is all the record reveals of this in- cident. Later that morning as President Malcolm Cor- don's secretary and a supervisor were walking across the street in front of the tent towards the of- fice building, an identified striker hit the secretary in the back and called her filthy and demeaning names, and the pickets threatened to remove her clothes and deliver her naked to the office. The su- pervisor was hit by a piece of wood and by fists on the shoulder, the side, the face, and elsewhere The pickets ran after him and kept hitting. The provoca- tion for this assault was that the secretary and su- pervisor had taken some coffee to people in the building they were leaving. During all of this Union Organizer Manuel Rosario was in the tent watching the scene and he made no move to stop or control what was going on or to disavow the Union's responsibility for it after it ended. That morning presumably after Mrs. Huegel had been on the ground close to the car, Peter Huegel arrived running up to President Malcolm Gordon, who was talking to a crowd of strikers. Excitedly Huegel, said to Gordon, in the presence of the strikers, "I'll kill you. If they hurt a hair on my wife's head I will hold you personally responsible I'll kill you. I'll kill you." Gordon took this threat seriously and so evidently did the strikers, for some of the strikers took Huegel away from the scene. Although Huegel denied making the threat to kill and admitted only that he told Gordon he would hold him responsible, I credit the credible witnesses Lawrence T. Anderson, Malcolm Gordon, and Luis Rosario that Huegel did utter the threat to kill. E. Responsibility of the Union for the Acts of Huegel, Rosario, Bonilla, and Hernandez , and the Pickets Generally All the circumstances herein proved that the Union's policy was to assist the strikers by gaining and keeping control of the strike and wresting ex- clusive bargaining rights from the Company. As its organizing time was extremely short, its policy was to convince the strikers quickly that in solidarity there is strength, that by maintaining the unity of the pickets and the strength of the strike the objec- tive of recognition could be achieved. As has been seen above, an oral demand was made on May I and the petition filed May 2. At all times thereafter the Union was seeking recognition or an election. SINDICATO PUERTORRIQUENO DE TRABAJADORES The record proved that Huegel and Rosario had general authority from the Union to carry out the Union's policy. Huegel was at the scene of the strike as much as he could be, consistent with prior obligations. He was on the scene nearly every day. Huegel admitted "working very closely in coordina- tion with the committees" to "maintain control" and "to set responsibilities and leadership " He ad- mitted that his "purpose was to ... provide some type of leadership." The entire record proved that he was known as "the American," and was the acknowledged leader of the strike. Rosario ad- mitted that he was in the area of the strike every day beginning at 5 o'clock in the morning, and that he was "in charge of all the plants." He helped select the "volunteers" to man the committees. In the exercise of their general authority from the Union, within hours after they had arrived on the strike scene, Huegel and Rosario were attempting with oral and written demands or requests to gain recognition. On some occasion prior to May 19, in front of a burning company building, Huegel asked President Gordon if he would recognize the Union now. Sometime between the filing of the charge on May 5 and May 20 Huegel went to the Board's Re- gional Office and protested letting the charge block the election. Through Huegel and Rosario, Felix Bonilla and Jorge Hernandez also had authority to carry out the Union's policies. As Huegel and Rosario and the Union took over, Bonilla, the original employee spokesman for the strikers, was kept on as pre- sident of the original committee. Bonilla spent much time during the strike in a car with a loud- speaker, giving instructions to pickets. Hernandez was put in charge of all the pickets under Rosario, and Hernandez appointed persons to supervise the strikers at each company gate. The record proved further that Huegel, Rosario, Bonilla, and Hernandez were participants in most of the incidents closely scrutinized in the record and set forth above, and that their acts were within the scope of their employment. They were present during the mass picketing and blocking and episodes of violence growing out of the mass picketing and blocking on May 5 and 19, and all of them were in the vehicles which harassed the truck on May 13. They condoned and did not repudiate the strikers' activities. This massed picketing and blocking and violence foreseeably grew out of the Union's forced drive to take over the strike and gain recognition quickly without the usual opportu- nity for an educational campaign. The massed picketing and blocking and violence foreseeably grew out of the Union's quickly imposed policy of solidarity and strength. Despite Huegel's general- ized testimony that he counseled peace and restraint and nonviolence to the strikers, he unquestionably condoned the mass picketing and `Compare Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Helpers and Taxicab Drivers, Local Union 327 (Hartmann Luggage Company ), 173 NLRB 220, International Woodworkers of America , Local Union 303, AFL-CIO, 144 NLRB 912, 543 blocking of the pickets and in the presence of strikers threatened to kill the president of the Com- pany. In the presence of pickets he talked abusively and vulgarly to drivers of cars trying to enter and exit. On the trip to San Juan behind the truck he shook his fist at a company superintendent, threatened to "get" the superintendent or the Com- pany, and drove the strikers who untied the truck's tailgate with the obvious intent of causing the load to spill out. Huegel admittedly had great power in the situation, for the massed pickets opened up and let cars through when he gave the signal. He testified that by a gesture he indicated to the pickets to open up "in every case that I was there." If he had the power in the situation to open up the massed pickets, which the record proved he had and which he admitted, then he also had the power to prevent the mass picketing and blocking if that is what he and the Union intended to do. Instead he and the Union accepted, condoned, and impliedly ratified these actions in an effort to gain recogni- tion or an election. Rosario supervised all the committees of the strike and the pickets. He was in the strike area on May 5 and participated in or witnessed without condemning several of the specific incidents of that day, as has been seen above. He did not try to prevent or control the roughing up of the super- visor and President Gordon's secretary, which oc- curred in front of him on May 19. Felix Bonilla, the original strike leader who became a leader for the Union, was one of a number of strikers who, on May 19, with their cars forced an employee to stop his car shortly after he left his home on May 19, their purpose being to persuade him not to go to work or take others to work. He participated in making the demands upon the Company for recognition. Jorge Hernandez, the picket captain, participated in making the demands upon the Company, drove a car following the truck on May 13, and tried to pull a female supervisor out of a car on May 5. As Huegel, Rosario, Bonilla, and Hernandez were acting within the scope of their authority I conclude that the Union was responsible for the unlawful strike activities engaged in by them, and by the pickets following their lead whose actions were condoned or impliedly ratified by them, including the mass picketing of gates and the blocking of in- gress and egress at the gates, the occasional but by no means isolated acts of violence to persons and property, the harassment of the truckdriver on May 13, and Huegel's threat to kill Gordon. These in- cidents and others reasonably tended to have a coercing or restraining effect on workers and strikers by deterring them from going to work or abandoning the strike and returning to work. By these acts and others Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(I )(A) of the Act,5 and interfered with 914, 915, Congreso de Uniones Industrailes de Puerto Rico, Ind , 163 NLRB 448,452 544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the exercise of a free and untrammeled choice by the employees at the election. One of the fruits of these acts may have been the Company's willingness to enter into the consent-election agree- ment on May 20. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent Union, set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the Company's operations described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial rela- tionship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. At all times material herein the Company has been engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 3. By mass picketing and blocking of ingress and egress at company entrances; by damaging and threatening the damage of automobiles, trucks, and other property entering or leaving company en- trances; by throwing bottles at, injuring, or threaten- ing physical violence to employees, supervisors, and company officers; and by harassing, crowding, delaying, throwing bottles and tacks or nails at and interfering with a company truckdriver driving on company business; in order to win a strike and gain recognition as exclusive bargaining agent, Respon- dent Union violated Section 8(b)( I )(A) of the Act. V. THE REMEDY To remedy its unfair labor practices I recom- mend that Respondent Union cease and desist from further commission of acts found herein to have been a violation, and any like or similar acts. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclu- sions of law, and the entire record, I hereby recom- mend that Respondent Sindicato Puertorriqueno de Trabajadores affiliated with Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, fi In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions , recommendations , and Recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions , and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na- AFL-CIO, its officers , agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Restraining or coercing the employees of the Company by mass picketing and blocking of ingress and egress at company entrances; by damaging and threatening the damage of automobiles, trucks, and other property entering or leaving company en- trances; by throwing bottles at injuring or threaten- ing physical violence to employees , supervisors, and company officers ; and by harassing , crowding, delaying, throwing bottles and tacks or nails at and interfering with a company truckdriver driving on company business ; in order to win a strike and gain recognition as exclusive bargaining agent. (b) In any like or similar manner restraining or coercing the employees of the Company in the ex- ercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its business office and meeting halls in Cayey, if it has any , copies of the attached notice marked " Appendix . 16 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 24, after being duly signed by the Union 's official representative , shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places , including all places where notices to mem- bers are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Union to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by any other material. (b) Mail signed copies of the notice to the Re- gional Director for Region 24 for posting by the Company , said Company willing , at all places where notices to the Company 's employees are customarily, posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 24, in writing , within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision , what steps have been taken to comply herewith.7 RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE REPRESENTATION CASE 1. The election of June 12, 1969, was held from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. The evening before, some 14 hours before the election began, the Union broadcast the remarks of some nine persons over the local Cayey radio station, beginning about 6:30 p.m. and con- tinuing until about 8 p.m. In his remarks the pre- sident of the Union made material and substantial tional Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " ' In the event that this Recommended Order is 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 Respondent has taken to comply herewith " SINDICATO PUERTORRIQUENO DE TRABAJADORES 545 misrepresentations of fact. In the context of describing Gordonshire Knitting Mills, Inc., and its "subsidiaries" in the Continental United States and what it paid its workers in its "other plants" he re- lated the wages ("he pays"), hours, holidays, and vacations of a non-Gordonshire plant in Pennsyl- vania as though it were a Gordonshire plant, all of these working conditions being considerably superi- or to those of the company's employees in Cayey. 2. Two or three days prior to the election a Civic Mediation Committee of Cayey mailed to em- ployees from a mailing list of employees supplied by the Company, the following message, signed by four members: ADVICE OF THE CIVIC MEDIATION COMMITTEE This Committee favors the establishment of labor unions for the well-being of the worker in general. Worker of Cayey, think first, above all, of Cayey, of you and your family. If you believe that this Union, if it wins the election , will bring about better working condi- tions and better salaries without prejudice to new industries coming to Cayey, vote for the Union. If you believe that this Union may be the cause of eliminating industries already established and of discouraging new ones, don't vote with this Union. We are only worried that because of private interests of the Union or of the company the general interest of Cayey and its industrial development may be jeopardized, which development is more important than the parties in controversy. Cayey needs the Gordonshire plant and the well-being of the workers of this plant. Think carefully in making this decision. This committee set upon itself the policy of seeing that the treatment and the working con- ditions of the workers will be the most fair and favorable. s/ Father Martin s/ Rev . Dionisio Crespo FATHER MARTIN REV. DENNIS CRESPO s/ Liberto Ramos s/ Jose Benet, Jr. LIBERTO RAMOS JOSE BENET, JR. The following day the Civic Mediation Commit- tee mailed employees a "clarification " reading as follows: CLARIFICATION TO THE WORKERS OF GORDON The leaders of the proposed Union for Gor- don have interpreted the leaflet published by us as a leaflet favoring the position of the em- ployer. We wish to clarify to the employees of Gor- don that we are only worried about the well- being of the whole of Cayey and that, since these employees are part of Cayey, we also worry about their well-being. We are all aware that the labor movement in Puerto Rico has been one among the many fac- tors to achieve the progress that is enjoyed in Puerto Rico We are neither with the employer nor with the Union. We are here to see that good un- derstanding exists between you all and the company. The existence of unions and collective bar- gaining agreements in Puerto Rican industry is a reality accepted by employers, workers and the people in general . We also agree that this is so. s/ Father Martin s/ Rev. Dennis Crespo FATHER MARTIN REV. DENNIS CRESPO s/ Liberto Ramos s/ Jose Benet, Jr. LIBERTO RAMOS JOSE BENET, JR. The parties stipulated that s substantial number of employees received these messages either by mail or personally from other employees. Once the evening before the election and twice on the morn- ing of the election prior to the opening of the polls, the Union paid for a radio announcement over the local Cayey radio station, which was made as a public announcement. This announcement began as follows: "Father Martin, the Rev. Dennis Crespo, and the Messrs. Heriberto Ramos and Pepe Benet have made the following statements by virtue of the elections that will be held at Gordonshire. The committee states the following and we quote." The broadcast then misrepresented the position of the Civic Mediation Committee by quoting three para- graphs favorable to the Union and nothing else con- cerning the committee's position. Thus the broad- cast then quoted the first paragraph of the Civic Mediation Committee's first message and the third and fifth paragraphs of the Committee's second message . The broadcast then said, "Fellow workers these are the quotes from the mediation committee: Fellow worker, fellow citizen, vote for the union and all vote under the yes. Only one cross under the yes. Announcement paid by Sindicato Puertor- riqueno de Trabajadores." 3. The above two misrepresentations of fact were made sufficiently close to the election as to prevent the Company and the Civic Mediation Committee from making an effective reply, and under all the circumstances may reasonably have had a significant impact upon the minds of the voters and the outcome of the election. Cf. Hol- lywood Ceramics Company, 140 NLRB 221 (1962); Jeffrey Mfg. Co., 71 LRRM 1589 (1969). 4. In view of the above misrepresentations, and the unfair labor practices found above which inter- fered with the exercise of a free and untrammeled 546 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD choice by the employees at the election, I recom- mend that the election of June 12, 1969, be set aside and that the Regional Director conduct a new election at such time as, in his judgment , the effects of the unfair labor practices and the misrepresenta- tions have been dissipated. APPENDIX NOTICE TO MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT engage in mass picketing and blocking of ingress and egress at company en- trances. WE WILL NOT damage or threaten to damage automobiles, trucks, and other property enter- ing or leaving company entrances. WE WILL NOT throw bottles at or injure or threaten physical violence to employees, super- visors, or company officers. WE WILL NOT harass or crowd on the highway or cause the delay of or throw bottles or tacks or nails at or in any way interfere with a company truckdriver driving on company business. WE WILL NOT in any like or similar manner restrain or coerce employees of Gordonshire Knitting Mills, Inc., or any of its affiliated com- panies, in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the National Labor Rela- tions Act. SINDICATO PUERTORRIQUENO DE TRABAJADORES AFFILIATED WITH AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS & BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or com- pliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board 's Office, Seventh Floor, Pan Am Building, 255 Ponce de Leon Avenue , Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 00919, Telephone 809-765-0404.