Union de Trabajadores

UNION DE TRABAJADORES Union dle Trabajadores Industriales de Puerto Rico, Inc., and its Agents Comite Pro-Rescate Operarias de la Industria de Aguja, David Munoz Vazquez and Angelica Gonzales and Bali, P.R., Inc., Bali Foundations, Inc., Newport Brassiere Co., Inc., and Bow Bra Co., Inc., and Puerto Rico Corset and Brassiere Association and International Ladies' Garment Workers Union and Local 600, Intervenor . Cases 24-CP-22, 24-CB-638, and 24-CF'-23 February 13, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND JENKINS On August 27, 1968, Trial Examiner William W. Kapell issued his Decision in the above-entitled case, finding that the Respondents had engaged in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondents, except for the Comite, filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, and one of the Charging Parties filed cross-exceptions. 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. 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 exceptions, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the finding,, 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 Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and orders that Respondent, Union De Trabajadores Industriales De Puerto Rico, Inc., its officers, agents, and representatives, including Comite Pro-Rescate Operarias De La Industria De Aguja, David Munoz Vazquez and Angelica Gonzales, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. 489 TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE' WILLIAM W. KAPELL, Trial Examiner. This matter, a proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act, was heard at Hato Rey, Puerto Rico, from May 6 to 14, 1968,' inclusive, with all parties participating, except Comite Pro-Rescate Operarias De La Industria De Aguja,3 pursuant to due notice on a consolidated complaint issued by the General Counsel on March 15.' The complaint, as amended, in substance, alleges that Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (B) and 7(A) of the Act. Respondents, other than Comite which defaulted in answering, denied the commission of any unfair labor practices, and affirmatively pleaded that the Act is not applicable to Puerto Rico. All parties except the defaulting Comite were represented and afforded opportunity to adduce evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to file briefs. Briefs were received from Charging Parties Bali-Newport-Bow and the represented Respondents, and have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record in the cases, and from my observation of the witnesses I make the following 5 1. COMMERCE Bali-Newport-Bow, Puerto Rico Corporations, are engaged in the business of manufacturing brassieres and are owned by Bali Company, a public holding corporation. The four corporations have the same general and assistant general managers , are located in two buildings, one in back of the other, and operate as an integrated enterprise. Bali, P.R., Inc., and Bali Foundations, Inc , occupy one building, while Newport Brassiere Co., Inc , and Bow Bra Co., Inc., occupy the other building. During the year prior to the hearing herein, said corporations purchased materials worth in excess of $1 million from sources located outside of Puerto Rico, and during the same period sold, manufactured, or finished goods worth in excess of $1 million to purchasers located outside of Puerto Rico. I find that at all times material herein, said corporations were engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 'The caption of the cases has been amended to conform to an order issued by the Regional Director on January 23, 1968, granting the unopposed motion of International Ladies' Garment Workers Union and Local 600 (hereinafter referred to as ILG ) to intervene 'All dates hereafter refer to the year 1968 unless otherwise noted 'Hereafter referred to as Comite 'Based upon an original charge filed in Case 24-CP-22 on January 26 and two amended charges by Bali, P .R Inc, Bali Foundations, Inc Newport Brassiere Co, Inc., and Bow Bra Co., Inc., hereinafter collectively referred to as Bali-Newport-Bow, an original charge filed in Case 24-CB-638, on January 26, and two amended charges filed by Bali-Newport-Bow; and a charge in Case 24-CP-23 filed February 1, by Puerto Rico Corset and Brassiere Association, hereafter called the Association Affidavits of service of the complaint indicate that service was made on Union De Trabajadores Industriales De Puerto Rico, Inc., referred to herein as Respondent Union, and its agents David Munoz Vazquez, Angelica Gonzales , and Comite Service on Comite was made on its agents Carmen Falcon, Antonia Perez, and Angelica Gonzales An answer was filed only on behalf of Respondent Union, David Munoz Vazquez and Angelica Gonzales 'General Counsel's motion for summary judgment against Comite for its default in answering, and on which decision was reserved during the hearing, is disposed of in accordance with the findings made hereafter 174 NLRB No. 78 490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Respondents admit, and I find, that at all times material herein Respondent Union and ILG were labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. HI. THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS A. Background The Association, a multiemployer group consisting of about 80 manufacturers in the needle craft industry in Puerto Rico, including Bali-Newport-Bow, Carolina Brassiere , Inc., Exquisite Form Industries, and Undergarment Accessories, Inc., represents its members, inter alia, in negotiating, executing, and administering collective-bargaining contracts covering the production and maintenance employees of its members on an associationwide basis. These employees for the past several years have been covered by collective-bargaining contracts executed by the Association with ILG, the last of which prior to 1968 was executed on February 1, 1965, and due to expire on January 31, 1968.6 B. Respondent Union's Organizing Campaign During the early fall of 1967 Respondent Union began an organizational campaign in the needle craft industry in the metropolitan area of San Juan, Puerto Rico, among the production and maintenance employees of several members of the Association, including Bali-Newport-Bow; Exquisite Form Industries, Puerto Rico Branch, Inc.; Carolina Brassiere Co., Inc.; and Undergarment Accessories, Inc. Campaign literature was distributed, meetings were held with groups of employees, and union authorization cards were solicited and collected. Respondent Union pointedly emphasized the advantages of the terms and conditions of employment of its members in its collective-bargaining contracts, especially its medical insurance plan, sick leave, and holidays, as compared with the terms and conditions of employment of the employees covered by the Association contract with ILG, and accused the ILG of neglecting the welfare and interest of its members and of being proemployer. About 2 weeks after the organizational campaign began at Bali-Newport-Bow, a group of employees was organized as a committee , and met at least once with David Munoz Vazquez? at his office. By letter of November 9, 1967, Respondent Union advised the Regional Office of the Board that it had appointed an organizing committee at Bali-Newport-Bows The committee met about twice a month at the home of a member. Angelica Gonzales acted as spokesman for the committee on at least one meeting. At a meeting held a few days before January 23, it was decided to strike Bali-Newport-Bow on January 23. David Munoz, who also attended the meeting, advised the members that he would support them in any work stoppage. About the time Bali-Newport-Bow was struck on January 23, a new committee of employees was organized 'Bali Foundations, Inc (one of the Bali-Newport-Bow Corporations) was organized in 1967 prior to the dispute herein and became a member of the Association at that time subject to the ILG contract with the Association 'The general secretary and top official of Respondent Union 'The committee was identified as consisting of Angelica Gonzales, Luz Maria Garcia, Aida L. Matos, Antonia Perez, Ennqueta Dias, Carmen Falcon, Antonia Dominguez , Rafaela Figueroa, Carmen Rita Rosado, Pilar Calderon, Maria Valazquez , and Angie Figueroa. and called the Comite.' Angelica Gonzales, who assisted in organizing the first committee, became one of the leaders of the Comite, other members were Carmen Falcon, Luz Maria Falcon, Ida Luz Matos, Sylvia Ortez, Dominga Rosario, Angie Figueroa, Rafaela Figueroa, Maria Teresa Lopez, Pilar Calderon, Eugenia Santana, Julia Agosta and Fermina Santiago, a group substantially similar to the membership of the first committee. During the organizing campaign Respondent Union filed seven R petitions for certification, one of which covered the employees at Bali-Newport-Bow and each of the other six petitions covered the employees of another Association member. These petitions were withdrawn upon advice of the Regional Office because the separate bargaining units sought were inappropriate in view of the Associationwide bargaining history. On December 1, 1967, Respondent Union filed a new R petition for all the production and maintenance employees of the Association members.10 On December 15, 1967, the Regional Director dismissed this petition for failure, to submit sufficient employee-signatures designating the petitioning Union as their bargaining representative. On December 22, 1967, the Respondent Union in a communication to the employees stated that its R petition filed on December 1 had been dismissed for failure to establish the required union support, a finding disputed by Respondent Union, and it threatened to strike the entire needlework industry in Puerto Rico unless the employees obtained their guaranteed rights. On December 25, 1967, Respondent Union requested Board review of the Regional Director's dismissal of its petition. On January 8, 1968, while its appeal to the Board on the dismissal of its R petition was pending, Respondent Union stated in a press release and on the radio that if the Board failed to grant it an election pursuant to its R petition, there would be a general work stoppage in the industry. On January 16 the Board dismissed Respondent Union's appeal, and thereafter on January 26 Respondent Union requested reconsideration by the Board, which was also denied on February 13, 1968. The Association and ILG began negotiating for a renewal contract in November 1967, which was completed in January at which time a new contract was executed for a term of 3 years beginning on February 1. 1. The strike activities at Bali-Newport-Bow Picketing began on January 23 at Bali-Newport-Bow with signs reading: "Do not cross the picket line," "We want elections," and "We do not want the ILGWU." These signs remained for the first 24 hours and thereafter were changed to read "This is a general strike ," and the picketing continued to February 2. The plants remained open on January 23, 24, 26, 29, and thereafter. On January 23, the pickets were urging the employees not to enter the factories , and were physically blocking those who attempted to do so Among the pickets were Carmen Falcon, Luz Maria Falcon, Dominga Rosario, Maria 'The evidence is vague as to the exact time of its creation The General Counsel in his summation stated that there is no evidence indicating that Comite came into being prior to the strike "Section 9(c)(i)(A) of the Act provides that the Board will investigate an election petition filed by a union when it alleges that "a substantial number of employees wish to be represented for collective bargaining and that their employer declines to recognize their representative . " The Board will only conduct an election on a union 's petition if it "has been designated by at least 30 percent of the employees." NLRB Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, Section 101.18(a) UNION DE TRABAJADORES 491 Teresa Lopez, Fermina Santiago, and Sylvia Ortez who stood at the entrance to the gate at Newport. Carmen Falcon told Charles Benitez, the assistant general manager, that two-thirds of the Bali employees were working only because the pickets at that plant were insufficiently trained but that the next day she would be there and make sure that no one would be able to enter. At the driveway to the building Fermina Santiago kneeled in front of cars attempting to enter and Dominga Rosario, Delores Perez, and Donna Antonia also blocked cars trying to enter and threatened to break their windows. A delivery truck from Sealand Company turned back after strikers kneeled in front of the truck obstructing its entry. About 30 out of the 450 employees entered Newport on January 23, and 375 out of 500 entered Bali. Sylvia Ortez, Angelica Gonzales, Maria Lopez, and Dominga Rosario also spoke over the loudspeaker urging the employees not to enter and stating that they would not be permitted to do so, and that the strike was called because they wanted an election and for Bali-Newport-Bow to leave the Association. On January 24, 60 to 100 people were on the picket line blocking the entrance of employees at the Bali gate. Maria Gonzales was seen hitting employees attempting to enter and Pilar Calderon and Natalia Ramos threw eggs through the balcony of Bali and also hit the police captain on duty. On January 24 or 25, Angelica Gonzales tore the blouse off and pinched employee Vicenta Torres trying to enter Bali. Pickets Ramos, Calderon, Matos, and Carmen Falcon kept shouting on the picket line that the girls who attempted to enter the plant would do so without their clothing. Beginning on the second week of the strike, pickets Calderon, Ramos, Izabel Hernandez, Rosario, Reyes, Carmen Falcon, and Fermina Santiago were seen pulling the hair and arms of employees who attempted to enter the plant Employee Margareta Pizarro was engulfed by pickets and when she emerged her dress had been torn off. Several arrests were made including Perez, Carmen Falcon, and Fermina Santiago. On several occasions on January 29, female employees attempting to cross the picket lines had part of their clothing torn off. Guillermania Castro, an ILG representative, was struck on the head with a picket sign requiring eight stitches. On February 2, employee Sol Perez was hit by a picket sign wielded by a picket when he came out of the plant and the picket was then arrested." On January 24 while the strike was in progress at Bali-Newport-Bow several members of the Comite including Angelica Gonzales, met with Mike Stein, president of the Bali Company, and Frank Irizarry and Charles Benitez, the manager and assistant general manager, respectively, of Bali-Newport-Bow. Angelica Gonzales stated that the strikers wanted an election because they were dissatisfied with ILG, and that the work stoppage was initiated to ascertain whether an election could be accelerated or whether Stein would drop out as a member of the Association. At a later meeting 'The above findings are based upon the credited composite testimony of Angelica Gonzales and Assistant Manager Charles Benitez. Employee Zoila M. Gonzales De Rodrigues testified that she was restrained by two strikers from entering Bali on December 23, and her blouse was torn off on January 29 when she tried to enter the plant; employee Carmen Luz Rivera testified that she was scratched on the arm upon entering the plant on January 23; Gloria Laura De Rivera testified that she was struck on the shoulder by a -picket sign wielded by a picket when she entered the plant after being told not to; and it was stipulated that if Anna Rodriquez and Celiac Jordan were called to testify they would state that they were assaulted by strikers on January 29 while attempting to enter the plant. that day, about 1 p.m., with Irizarry and Benitez, Angelica Gonzales proposed that an employee grievance committee be recognized by management at each of its plants, and that ILG stewards be ignored.' Z An hour later she informed Stein that the employees would not agree to her proposal. About 4 p.m. the same day, she and a number of Comite members met with Stein and requested that an election be held or that they work without a union. Stein replied that he could not drop out of the Association or do anything about an election. The following day, January 25, in a meeting at the Tastee Freeze Restaurant, located near the Bali-Newport-Bow plants, David Munoz asked Angelica Gonzales how everything was going." On January 25 and 26 David Munoz was seen in the vicinity of Bali-Newport-Bow, and on January 28 Vicente Fradero'" and Gregario Davila" were also seen near the plants. Photographs admitted in evidence, taken on January 30 and 31 at Bali-Newport-Bow, and on February 1 show individuals identified as Gregario Davila, Jose Perez, Angel Luis Ayala,is and David Munoz participating in the strike activities at those plants. Rosendo Figueroa Martinez testified on behalf of the General Counsel that he worked as an organizer for Respondent Union beginning in December and until February 26, and that he was hired by Frank Munoz Vazquez." At first he distributed union literature at various brassiere plants, including Bali-Newport-Bow, collected union authorization cards, and spoke over loudspeakers. He was transported from plant to plant in a union car usually accompanied by one or two Respondent Union officials such as David Munoz, Gregario Davila, Angel Luis Ayala, Vicente Fradera, Frank Munoz (a brother of David Munoz), or Perez. When the strike began he and union officials were taken by a car to a cafeteria near Bali-Newport-Bow where he received reports from the pickets and union officials and transmitted them by telephone to Respondent Union's secretaries Maritza or Lourdes. He also heard David Munoz deliver a speech over the loudspeaker on January 30 at Bali-Newport-Bow, and was directed by Munoz to state when he spoke over the loudspeaker that Respondent Union supported the pickets. Also, on instructions from Munoz he hired nonemployee pickets for picket duty at Bali-Newport-Bow. 2. The organizing campaign and strike at Carolina Brassiere Co. From October to the end of January 1968 Jose Perez and Angel Luis Ayala appeared at the Carolina plant and spoke over the loudspeaker asking the employees to join Respondent Union, which they represented, and to get rid of the ILG. On January 23 Angelica Gonzales appeared at the plant and after identifying herself said that she was from Bali, where they had already struck, and that they would support a strike at Carolina. Pickets appeared carrying signs stating "Out with the ILGWU," and "We want an election." On that day Perez also spoke over the "According to the testimony of Sylvia Ortez, Stein made a somewhat similar proposal to the strikers during the strike "These findings are based upon the testimony of Angelica Gonzales. "Secretary of minutes of Respondent Union. "An organizer for Respondent Union. "Jose Perez and Ayala were also organizers for Respondent Union. "During the hearing, Respondent Counsel admitted that Martinez was loaned by the Boilermakers Union to work for Respondent Union and received instructions from David Munoz for a time. 492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD loudspeaker stating that he was from Respondent Union and urged the employees to strike for an election. A meeting was held shortly after the strike began between General Manager David Stone of Carolina and three strikers, of whom Carmen Carrasquillo was the spokesman. She requested a change of union from ILG to Respondent Union. Stone replied that he had a contract with ILG, which was the recognized Union, and asked the girls to go back to work. The girls refused but the next day the factory reopened and the employees resumed working.' ° 3. The organizing campaign and strike at Exquisite Form Industries On January 23 Exquisite was struck. Striking employees and Angelica Gonzales spoke over the loudspeaker exhorting the employees to strike for free elections because they did not want the ILG. Picket signs were placed against the fence of the plant. However, many of the employees ignored the strike and continued to work. The next day the majority of the employees returned to work. During the previous few months several agents of Respondent Union had solicited employees to sign authorization cards at the plant. David Munoz had also been seen several times at the plant during the organizing campaign, and on December 28 or 29, 1967, in addressing the employees over the loudspeaker he complained that the petition filed by his Union had been unjustifiably dismissed by the Board, and that they would have to strike for their rights. Angelica Gonzales, who had also appeared at the plant during the organizing campaign to address the employees over the loudspeaker, had demanded an election and had stated that they did not want the ILG." 4. The strike at Undergarment Accessories On January 29 Undergarment was struck. Pickets appeared shouting that they did not want the ILG 'During the day a meeting was held in the offices of the Company, which was attended by its manager and lawyers, representatives of ILG, and lawyers for the strikers. The strikers stated at the meeting that they did not want the ILG or its contract. On the following day, January 30, Rosendo Figueroa Martinez was directed by David Munoz to go to the Undergarment plant with picket signs and was instructed to state that he was not from the Respondent Union but belonged to the Comite. Following his appearance at the plant he addressed the employees over .the loudspeaker stating that they wanted an election and did not want the ILG.20 C. The Issues 1. Whether Respondent Union and its agents in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act engaged in strike activities at plants of Association members, which restrained or coerced employees in the exercise of their guaranteed rights in Section 7. "The above findings are based on the uncontradicted testimony of Rosa M. Lopez, an employee of Carolina, and David Stone "The above findings are based upon the credited testimony of Felicita Cruz Falcon, a business agent and organizer for ILG 30The above findings are based upon the uncontroverted testimony of Felicita Cruz Falcon and Rosendo Figueroa Martinez. 2. Whether Respondent Union and its agents in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B) restrained or coerced employer-members of the Association in the selection of their bargaining representative for purposes of collective bargaining. 3. Whether Respondent Union and its agents in violation of Section 8(b)(7)(A) of the Act picketed employer members of the Association for the purpose of obtaining recognition at a time when no valid question of representation could be raised and the employers had already recognized ILG as the bargaining representative of their employees. D. Conclusions 1. The 8(b)(1)(A) violations The General Counsel contends that the alleged 8(b)(1)(A) violations occurred only at Bali-Newport-Bow. The incidents reflected in the record show that on the picket line during the strike the pickets openly threatened to physically restrain and prevent employees and cars from entering the plant, and that in doing so several employees were injured. Respondent counsel in his brief concedes, that violence occurred on the picket line but claims thatit was only of a minor nature. I find, however, that the violence reached widespread proportions despite the presence of the police, that several employees were seriously injured, one of whom required eight stitches for a head wound, and that several pickets and strikers were arrested for assaulting nonstriking employees or preventing cars from entering the plant. The, General Counsel asserts that at all times material herein Respondent Union through its officers and agents fostered and sponsored the strike activities , at Bali-Newport-Bow and the other struck plants, and instructed, supervised, and coordinated the pickets and strikers in their activities on the picket lines. Respondents deny responsibility for those activities. The evidence clearly establishes that Respondent Union conducted a vigorous and forceful organizing campaign at Bali-Newport-Bow and to a lesser extent at Carolina, Exquisite Forms, and Undergarment. It also filed, an R petition claiming support of at least 30 percent of the employees. When the petition was dismissed for failure to show sufficient support, it publicly threatened to strike the Companies unless the Board reversed the Regional Director's dismissal." Furthermore, the organizing committee and its successor, the Comite, worked closely with Respondent Union. Thus, David Munoz attended the committee's meeting on January 21, when a general stoppage was authorized, at which time he assured the committee of his support. Thereafter, on January 25, Munoz met with Angelica Gonzales and inquired how the strike was going. Rosendo Figueroa Martinez testified without contradiction that he was instructed by Munoz to hire nonemployee pickets and that he did so, and that during the strike pursuant to instructions he kept Respondent Union apprised of strike developments from the scene of such activities at Bali-Newport-Bow by relaying messages from the pickets to Respondent Union's secretaries by telephone. Also, during the strike at Bali-Newport-Bow various officials of Respondent Union were conspicuous in the vicinity, addressing the employees over loudspeakers, some of whom counseled and urged the strikers and pickets to block employees attempting to "See G.C Exh. 5 - 22(a) and 23(a) UNION DE TRABAJADORES enter the plants. The record is completely barren of any attempt by Respondent officials to restrain or moderate the violent activities of the pickets or strikers. Nor did the Respondent Union officials disavow or disclaim responsibility for such activities. The record also establishes that David Munoz masterminded the organizing efforts of Respondent Union, advised the Regional Office of the identity of the organizing committee, promised his support of the strike, appeared in the vicinity of and at Bali-Newport-Bow during the strike, and addressed the employees in front of the plant on one of these days. Finally, the record shows that on February 8, following the termination of the picketing on February 2 and the failure of the strike, Fradera, an admitted organizer for Respondent Union, told Benitez and Irizarry at a restaurant near Bali-Newport-Bow that Respondent Union had left and had nothing more to do with the strike, thereby in effect, admitting its previous participation. The evidence, especially the testimony of Angelica Gonzales, shows that she was a leader both in the organizing committee and the Comite, that she took a very active part in the violence which occurred on the picket line during the strike, and that she worked closely with Munoz. The evidence also shows that Carmen Falcon, also a member of the' Comite, participated in physically blocking employees from entering the plant, and told Benitez on January 23, when the Bali employees were successfully penetrating the picket line, that on the following day she would be at that line and would make sure that nobody would enter even if she had to resort to violence to accomplish that end. Antonia Perez, another member of Comite, was also one of the pickets who blocked cars attempting to enter the Bali-Newport-Bow plant by kneeling in the driveway. In the light of the foregoing, I find that Respondent Union, the Comite, Angelica Gonzales, and David Munoz directed and participated in and are responsible for the strike misconduct which occurred on the picket lines at Bali-Newport-Bow. Moreover, even assuming the absence of any direct evidence that any official or agent of Respondent Union specifically directed the employees to engage in the strike and picketing that would not be determinative of Respondent Union's responsibility. Circumstantial as well as direct evidence may be considered'21 in a realistic analysis of Respondent Union's conduct. To contend here that the strikers were acting independently in the exercise of their own free will and initiative rather than carrying out Respondent Union's policy is to overlook the basic fundamental realities of industrial life. 1, therefore, find and conclude that Respondents restrained and coerced employees in the excercise of their statutory rights in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. See, New Power Wire and Electric Corp. v. N L.R.B , 340 F.2d 71, 72 (C.A. 2); Sunset Line and Twine Company, 79 NLRB 1487, International Woodworkers of America (W T. Smith Lumber Co.), 116 NLRB 507. 2. The violations of Section 8(b)(1)(B) Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act proscribes labor organizations or their agents from restraining or coercing an employer in the selection of his bargaining representative The record amply establishes that one of the prime objects of Respondent Union and its agents was to compel the involved employer-members of the Association to sever their membership, thereby "Local 25, IBEW (New York Telephone Company), 162 NLRB 703 493 withdrawing bargaining authority for the Association, and to bargain individually with the Respondent Union. Direct demands were made on these employers to achieve this objective both during the organizing campaigns and the strikes Inasmuch as I have found Respondent Union and its agents David Munoz, Angelica Gonzales, and the Comite responsible for the picketing, I accordingly, conclude that they also violated Section 8(b)(l)(B) of the Act. See International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 825, AFL-CIO, and Peter Weber, its Business Manager (Building Contractors Association of New Jersey), 145 NLRB 952, 962. 3. The 8(b)(7)(A) violations In order to establish that picketing is in violation of Section 8(b)(7)(A), it must appear that the purpose of the picketing is to secure recognition, that the employer is lawfully recognizing a labor organization other than the picketing group, and that at the time of the picketing a question of representation may not be properly raised. The General Counsel contends that he has satisfied all three requirements. Respondents contend that the evidence fails to establish any connection between the strikers and Respondent Union, and that the picketing was neither organizational nor recognitional and sought only an election. a The picketing The facts and findings related above in connection with the 8(b)(1)(A) violations establish that Respondent Union and its agents were involved in and responsible for the picketing. b. The purpose of the picketing "In determining whether picketing has recognition or bargaining as an objective, the Board scrutinizes all evidence in the case, including events which preceded as well as those which accompany picketing."23 Although it does not appear that Respondent Union specifically made a direct demand for recognitidn,24 the evidence in its totality plainly reflects that Respondent Union's ultimate objective was to supplant ILG as the exclusive bargaining representative of the involved employees. Thus, it engaged in a very energetic organizing campaign over a period of several months,- extolling the advantages and benefits of its members, filed R petitions, and strongly attacked the ILG as a procompany union unconcerned with and unresponsive to the welfare of its members. It also demanded that the employer-members withdraw from the Association so that they could bargain individually with Respondent Union. The evidence, in sum, provides a basis from which it can reasonably be inferred that an object of the picketing was to obtain recognition. To assume otherwise would not only be unrealistic but naive. "Local 345, Retail Store Employees Union (GEM of Syracuse), 145 NLRB 1168, 1172. 14I do not regard the abortive attempt by Angelica Gonzales to have Bali-Newport-Bow recognize an employee committee to handle employee grievances as a demand for recognition of Respondent Union. Nor do I find that the request of striker, Carmen Carrasquillo, to the manager of Carolina Brassiere for a change of union from ILG to Respondent Union sufficient per se to attribute the request to Respondent Union. 494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD c. The Association's recognition of ILG . The Board has taken the position that when an employer recognizes a union and executes a collective-bargaining agreement with it, a rebuttable presumption arises that the union represents a majority of the employees Shamrock Dairy, Inc., 119 NLRB 998, 1002, enfd. sub nom International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. N.L.R.B., 280 F.2d 665 (C.A.D.C.), cert denied 364 U.S. 892. The recurd amply shows that the Association on behalf of its members has recognized ILG for many years as the bargaining representative of the employees of its members on an associationwide basis, and that the Association and ILG have been parties to collective-bargaining agreements prior to, during, and after the picketing herein. No evidence was introduced which would tend to show that ILG did not represent an uncoerced majority of the employees in the appropriate unit. Nor did Respondent Union establish that it represented a majority of those employees.25 At most, Respondent Union attempted to show that ILG was not properly representing the employees involved herein, a matter neither relevant nor material to the issue d. The timing of the picketing There remains only the question of whether the picketing attributed to Respondent Union took place at a time when it would be proper to raise a question of representation . The uncontroverted record discloses that there has been a history of collective bargaining on a multiemployer basis between the Association and ILG going back many years, during which collective-bargaining contracts were negotiated binding the parties. The picketing began herein at a time when such an agreement was in full force and effect between the Association and ILG. This agreement expired on January 31 and on February 1 a renewal collective-bargaining agreement for 3 years went into effect following negotiations between the parties pursuant to their arrangements However, the picketing continued at Bali-Newport-Bow until February 2. The Board has held that effective collective-bargaining agreements, such as the ones involved herein , constitute a bar to the selection of an outside union as the bargaining representative of the employees. 26 Based on the foregoing I find and conclude that Respondent Union and its Agents David Munoz, Angelica Gonzales, and the Comite violated Section 8 (b)(7)(A) by the picketing of Association members as indicated hereinabove, for the ultimate purpose of having Respondent Union recognized as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees of the Association members. 4. The applicability of the Act to Puerto Rico Respondent Union asserts that the Act has no applicability to Puerto Rico. I find no merit in this contention The Act was held applicable to pre-Commonwealth Puerto Rico in N.L.R.B. v. Gonzalez Padin Company, 161 F.2d 353, 354-355 (C.A. 1), and it has also been held applicable to post-Commonwealth "The Board, in fact, in affirming the dismissal of Respondent Union's R petition by the Regional Director, found that the Respondent Union failed to establish even a 30 percent support by the employees. "See Local 3, International Brotherhood of,Electrical Workers (Darby Electric Corporation), 153 NLRB 717, 723, and cases cited therein Puerto Rico in Cosentino v. International Longshoremen's Association JP.R Steamship Assn.J, 126 F. Supp. 420, 422 (D.C.P.R. San Juan Division). See also Xavier Zequeira, 102 NLRB 874; Gorbea, Perez & Morell, S en C., 133 NLRB 362, 366. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondents, set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Companies described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among 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. Respondent Union and ILG are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. At,all times material herein Bali-Newport-Bow have been integrated employers constituting a single enterprise engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 3, At all times material herein the Association, a multiemployer association, has been the bargaining agent of its members for the purpose, inter alia, of negotiating and executing collective-bargaining contracts covering the production and maintenance employees of its members on an associationwide basis. 4. At all times material herein Bali-Newport-Bow, Carolina Brassiere Co., Exquisite Form Industries, and Undergarment Accessories, among others, have been members of the Association. 5 At all times material herein, and for the past several years, the production and maintenance employees of the members of the Association have been covered by collective-bargaining contracts executed by the Association on their behalf with ILG as the bargaining representative of their employees. 6. Respondents jointly and severally restrained and coerced employees of Bali-Newport-Bow in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 7. Respondents jointly and severally restrained and coerced employer-members of the Association in the selection of their representative for the purpose of collective-bargaining in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. 8. By picketing or causing the picketing at the plants of Bali-Newport-Bow, Carolina Brassiere, Exquisite Form, and Undergarment Accessories with an object of forcing or requiring those employers to recognize and bargain with it as the collective-bargaining representative of their employees, and with the further object of forcing or requiring those employees to accept or select it as their collective-bargaining representative, at a time when Respondent Union was not currently certified as such representative, the employers had lawfully recognized another labor organization as the collective-bargaining representative of its employees, and a question concerning representation could not be raised under Section 9(c) of the Act, the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(A) of the Act. UNION DE TRABAJADORES 495 9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents have violated Section 8(b)(1)(A), (1)(B), and (7)(A) of the Act, I shall recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Although the findings herein show that Respondents have engaged in violative conduct at the plants of a relatively small number of Association -members, it is evident that Respondent Union's avowed purpose is to supplant the ILG as the bargaining representative of the employees on an associationwide basis and/or to cause the dissolution of the Association. I, therefore, shall recommend that a broad form order be issued in order to afford protection to all the members of the Associations as well as those who were involved in violations. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact: and conclusions of law, and the entire record, it is hereby recommended that Respondent Union De Trabajadores Industriales De Puerto Rico, Inc., and its agents Comite Pro-Rescate Operarias De La Industria De Aguja, David Munoz Vazquez and Angelica Gonzales, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns , shall- 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Restraining or coercing the employees of Bali, P.R. Inc., Bali Foundations, Inc., Newport Brassiere Co., Inc., Bow Bra Co., Inc., or any other employer-member of Puerto Rico Corset and Brassiere Association or the employees of any other employer doing business with the aforesaid Employers, by assaulting or threatening to commit bodily harm on said employees, engaging in mass picketing, blocking ingress or egress to the premises of the aforesaid Employers, physically preventing supervisors, employees, and others from entering the premises of the aforesaid employers; or in any other manner restraining or coercing the employees of the aforesaid Employers in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. (b) In any manner restraining or coercing Bali, P.R. Inc., Bali Foundations, Inc., Newport Brassiere Co., Inc., Bow Bra Co., Inc., Carolina Brassiere Co., Inc., Exquisite Form Industries, Puerto Rico Branch, Inc., Undergarment Accessories, Inc., or any other employer-member of Puerto Rico Corset and Brassiere Association within the meaning of Section 8(b)(l)(B) of the Act in the selection or retention of that Association as their exclusive representative for the purpose of collective bargaining. (c) Picketing or threatening to picket the premises of Bali, P.R., Inc., Bali Foundations, Inc., Newport Brassiere Co., Inc., Bow Bra Co., Inc., Carolina Brassiere Co., Inc., Exquisite Form Industries, Puerto Rico Branch, Inc., Undergarment Accessories, Inc., or any employer-member of Puerto Rico Corset and Brassiere Association, where an object thereof is forcing or requiring any of the aforesaid employers to recognize or bargain with Respondent Union De Trabajadores Industriales De Puerto Rico, Inc., as the collective-bargaining representative of their employees, or forcing or requiring said employees to select or accept said Respondent as their collective-bargaining representative, where said employers have lawfully recognized in accordance with the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, International Ladies' Garment Workers Union and Local 600, or any other labor organization other than Respondent Union, and a question concerning the representation of said employees may not appropriately be raised under Section 9(c) of the Act, unless said Respondent Union is then currently certified as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees of said employers. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its business office, meeting halls, and all places where notices to its members are customarily posted, copies27 of the attached- notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 24, shall, after being duly signed by Respondents and/or their representatives, be posted by Respondent Union immediately after receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent 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 Regional Director for Region 24 for posting, the Charging Parties willing, at all locations where notices to their employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 24, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision, what steps Respondents have taken to comply herewith.29 "In view of the fact that the employees involved here for the most part are literate in Spanish only, the notices shall be posted both in English and in Spanish 2"In the event that 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. In the further event that the Board's Order is 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." "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 Respondents have taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX Notice to all Members of Union De Trabajadores Industriales De Puerto Rico, Inc., and to all Members of Comite Pro-Rescate Operarias De La Industria De Aguja 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 you that: WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce the employees of Bali, P.R., Inc., Bali Foundations, Inc., Newport Brassiere Co., Bow Bra Co., Inc., or any other employer-member of Puerto Rico Corset and Brassiere Association or the employees of any other employer doing business with the aforesaid employers, by assaulting or threatening to commit bodily harm on said employees, engaging in mass picketing, blocking ingress to or egress from the premises of the aforesaid 496 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employers, physically preventing supervisors, employees, and others from entering the premises of the aforesaid employers; or in any other manner restraining or coercing the employees of the aforesaid employers in the exercise of their statutory rights. WE WILL NOT in any manner coerce or restrain Bali, P.R., Inc., Bali Foundations, Inc., Newport Brassiere Co., Inc., Bow Bra Co., Inc., Carolina Brassiere Co., Inc., Exquisite Form Industries, Puerto Rico Branch, Inc., Undergarment Accessories, Inc., or any other employer-member of Puerto Rico Corset and Brassiere Association in the selection or retention of that Association as their exclusive representative for the purpose of collective bargaining. WE WILL NOT picket or cause to be picketed or threaten to picket Bali, P.R., Inc., Bali Foundations, Inc., Newport Brassiere Co., Inc., Bow Bra Co., Inc., Carolina Brassiere Co., Inc., Exquisite Form Industries, Undergarment Accessories, Inc., or any other employer-member of Puerto Rico Corset and Brassiere Association where an object thereof is to force or require said Companies to recognize or bargain with Union de Trabajadores Industriales de Puerto Rico, Inc., as the representative of their employees, or to force or require the employees of said' Companies to „accept or select said Union as their collective-bargaining representative, where said Companies have lawfully recognized, in, accordance with the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, International Ladies' Garment Workers Union and Local 600, or any other labor organization, and a question concerning representation of said employees may not appropriately be raised under Section 9(c) of the Act, unless Union de Trabajadores Industriales de Puerto Rico, Inc., is then currently certified by the National Labor Relations' Board as their representative. UNION DE TRABAJADORES INDUSTRIALES DE PUERTO Rico, INC. (Labor Organization) Dated By Dated By Dated By Dated" By (Representative ) (Title) CO MITE-PRO-RE SCATE OPERARIAS DE LA INDUSTRIA DE AGUJA (Title) DAVID MUNOZ VAZQUEZ /s/ ANGELICA GONZALES /s/ 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. If members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions,, they may communicate directly with the Board's, Regional Office, 7th Floor, Pan Am Building, 255 Ponce de Leon Avenue, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 00919, Telephone 765-1125.