National Life Insurance Co.

374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Security National Life Insurance Co. and Union Nacional de Trabajadores . Case 24-CA-3148 March 13, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO On December 7, 1972, Administrative Law Judge Almira A. Stevenson issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt her recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondent, Security National Life Insurance Co., Bayamon, Puerto Rico, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Administrative Law Judge's recommended Order. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ALMIRA ABBOT STEVENSON, Administrative Law Judge: This case was tried at Hato Rey, Puerto Rico, on September 19 and 20, 1972. The charge was filed by the Union and served on the Respondent March 9, 1972; the complaint was issued June 30, 1972. The issues are (a) whether or not the National Labor Relations Board has jurisdiction over this proceeding; (b) whether or not the Respondent , through its admitted supervisors, threatened employees and created the impres- sion of surveillance of their union activities , in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, Series 8, as amended ; and (c) whether the Respondent discharged Aureo A. Rivera because of his union membership or activities, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, or t No brief has been received from the General Counsel or the Charging Party 2 Xavier Zequeira, 102 NLRB 874, see also Union de Trabajadores Industriales de Puerto Rico, Inc, 174 NLRB 489, Call, Burnup & Sims, Inc, 159 NLRB 1661, Gorbea, Perez & Morell, S en C, 133 NLRB 362, reversed because of inefficiency. I find against the Respondent on substantially all counts, as explained below. Upon the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the brief filed by the Respondent,) I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. JURISDICTION The Respondent is a domestic corporation engaged in the insurance business and in real estate investments in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. During the past calendar year, it received, in the course of its business operations, premiums on insurance policies exceeding $500,000 in value, of which more than $50,000 was received from policies outside Puerto Rico. During the same period it received more than $99,000 from reinsur- ance sources outside Puerto Rico, and paid insurance claims on policies exceeding $1,000,000 in value, of which more than $5,000 was paid to beneficiaries outside Puerto Rico. The Respondent admits the above facts, but contends that the Act is not applicable to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The Board has, however, ruled adversely to the Respondent on this issue.2 As the Respondent's operations meet the appropriate Board jurisdictional standards,3 which are applicable to Puerto Rico,4 I find that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this proceeding. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION The Respondent admits, and I find, that the Charging Party, referred to herein as the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Evidence The Respondent's Bayamon branch office, here in- volved, is managed by Ramon Benitez. It employs 3 supervisors and 15 agents whose duty it is to sell insurance policies and collect premiums. The agents and supervisors occupy one large office; Benitez has a private office. The agents cover their debits, or geographical territories, in their automobiles selling policies and calling at customers' premises to collect premiums. Aureo A. Rivera was hired as an agent by Benitez in October 1971. Rivera was an experienced, licensed insur- ance agent at the time of hire. He was assigned a mainly rural debit which at that time contained customers paying on other grounds 328 F.2d 679 (C A. 1) 3 Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 141 NLRB 1074 and 141 NLRB 337 4 See Conrado Forestier d/b/a Cantera Providencia, Ill NLRB 848, Puerto Rico Foods Products Corporation, I 1 I NLRB 293 202 NLRB No. 64 SECURITY NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. weekly premiums totaling $120.72 and monthly premiums totaling $228. During the 4-1/2 months of his employ, the collectable premiums never fell below those figures. When Rivera was discharged on March 6, 1972, the collectable weekly premiums in his debit totaled $136.19, and the monthly premiums totaled $252.16. Rivera's average earnings were about the same when he left the Respon- dent's employ as they were when he began. Restituto Oyola Alvarez (herein called Oyola) supervised Rivera as well as agents Heliodoro Cruz Candelario (herein Cruz), Jose Lopez, Carlos Negron, and Jose Riquelme Rivera (herein Riquelme). Rivera began talking to the other agents about the advantages of unionism at the end of January 1972, usually outside, but sometimes inside, the office. Meetings were held among the agents at Riquelme's home and at other places. At the beginning of February, this Union was decided upon. Rivera visited the union office and received blank authorization cards. He solicited signatures during February and March in the hallway and away from the office; he obtained the signatures of two agents in the office on his last day of employment. Cruz obtained one signature and gave the card to Rivera, who took it and the cards he had obtained to the union office.5 In February, Rivera received honorable mention in the Respondent's published bulletins for a net increase of $32.64 in sales of monthly premium policies during the period December 15 to January 20 or 25 .6 This was the 4th highest increase of the 15 Bayamon agents, and the 11th highest for the Respondent's entire complement of over 100 agents. Rivera conceded that his debit "started going down" in mid-February because, he testified, his automobile needed repair, and at the same time he had "personal problems." 7 He testified that he asked Oyola for help, as Rivera understood that was what the supervisors were there for. Oyola, however, did not help him. Cruz testified that Oyola called him into Benitez's office on February 21 on a matter of money missing from his account. Cruz testified that he reimbursed the Company, and was not reprimanded. During this interview, Cruz continued, Oyola told him that he should not be "in accord" with Rivera's "idea of the union," and not to follow Rivera "in that respect." Cruz replied that he intended to consider all points on both sides. On Febru4ry 25, Benitez sent for Rivera and told him he was not satisfied with Rivera's work because his sales were not good enough. Rivera and Benitez appear to be in agreement that it is net sales-i.e., sales of new policies as compared with lapses of previously sold policies-which is the true measure of an agent's performance. Rivera explained to Benitez that he had not had a car, and that Supervisor Oyola had not given him any help. Benitez responded, according to Rivera, "that that was tough, but that he could not control Mr. Oyola." Rivera testified that Benitez then said "that I bugged him," and added, "Oh, I 5 Based on the undisputed testimony of Rivera and Cruz, and stipulations that Riquelme and agent Gonzales would testify to the same effect. 6 Benitez, who testified with respect to the period covered by the 375 would just like to get rid of you, I do not like to see you around the office." On March 6, 1972, Benitez again called Rivera in, and this time informed him he was no longer needed. According to Rivera, Benitez said, "I'm going to pay you for today and do not come back to the office." After further discussion, Benitez finally stated, according to Rivera, "Look, let's cut it off at this point, there is another reason why I'm firing you but I am not authorized to go into it, to divulge it." Rivera refused Benitez's request that he turn in his debit book, which was Rivera's record of the accounts in his debit, until his debit had been audited. The next day, Oyola audited Rivera's debit by visiting his customers. No complaint resulted from the audit. On March 8, Rivera return to the office with his debit book to demand a month's severance pay. Benitez was not in the Bayamon office that morning, but Rivera told him over the telephone that he would not turn in the book until his severance pay was paid. Benitez threatened him with legal action. After checking with his attorney, Rivera "made a public statement" to all the agents present to witness that he was turning in his debit book because Benitez had threatened him. According to Rivera, Oyola then told him to shut his mouth and leave the office. Rivera said that the employees would not be coerced because "we have the union to back us up." According to Rivera, Cruz, Gonzales, and Riquelme, Oyola then announced that the Company knew Rivera had been handing out papers and collecting signatures, and that was the reason he was being fired, or words to that effect. Rivera returned to the Bayamon office for the last time on March 10, when Benitez gave him a check for his severance pay, and the two of them discussed unions in the presence of all the agents, Benitez taking the position that the Union Rivera was trying to bring in was not needed and was not a good union. Cruz testified he was not in the office on March 6, when Rivera was fired, but that Oyola visited his home that evening. According to Cruz, Oyola told him Rivera was discharged "for taking signatures and that they were also going to get another gentleman ...." Cruz also testified that Oyola subsequently called him into Benitez's office and repeated to him in private that Rivera had been discharged "for those reasons, for taking the signatures," and that Oyola said "that the same thing could happen to me if I followed Aureo's ideas." Gonzalez, also active in the organizing effort, testified that Supervisor Louis Donato asked him later in the day on March 8 what had happened that morning and told him, "You are not that type of boy, you know what kind of fellow Aureo is and what he stands for." Gonzalez also testified that Benitez told him the following week "that I should start looking for another job because I was one of the instigators of the union" and that the Company "was not going to allow it." Gonzalez was dismissed the following August for refusing to obey an order of his bulletins, was uncertain about the exact dates. By personal problems, Rivera apparently meant that he and his wife, who was a schoolteacher, had difficulty finding someone to care for their children while they were away at work. 376 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD supervisor, but was reinstated a week later without loss of pay. Riquelme testified that Oyola accompanied him on his route the following Tuesday, March 14, and informed him that the Company "had knowledge that I had been elected representative of the union at the Bayamon agency." Riquelme replied that it was true, but that he did not belong to this Union and had not signed a card. Oyola commented, according to Riquelme, "that that was not good for me, that that was no good." Supervisor Oyola denied the antiumon statements attributed to him by Rivera, Cruz, Riquelme, and Gonza- lez. Oyola also testified that based on information which two employees had volunteered, he told Riquelme in a friendly way, "I congratulate you because you were elected [the leader of the union movement] according to your friends." Oyola further testified that he had always helped Rivera when requested with his debit which covered a big territory. However, on one occasion in February when Rivera asked for help, Oyola did not help him because Cruz told Oyola that Rivera was out of his debit that day picketing in front of the Medical Center in Toa Alta and carrying lumber to fix a house he had on some land belonging to the Government; and also Rivera did not need help because his debit was 100 percent collected for the month of February. Benitez testified it was he who fired Rivera, and for the following reasons: Although there was no problem about Rivera's collections, Rivera's sales began to slump in mid or late January. On or about February 25, Benitez called him in about his insufficient sales. Rivera admitted he could do a better job but said he had had trouble with his car and Oyola had refused his request for help. Benitez gave him 2 weeks to increase his sales or be let go. Benitez said he asked Oyola why he had not helped Rivera and Benitez had "confidence in Mr. Oyola's decision and I accepted it." Although he said it was company practice for supervisors to help agents who had car trouble, Benitez could not remember why Oyola did not help Rivera. Two weeks went by and nothing happened at all, Benitez continued. Rivera had no sales; in fact, he had a net deficit for the period. Benitez therefore terminated Rivera on March 6 for this reason. Benitez did not recall saying that the discharge was for personal reasons; he denied that he said there were other reasons which he was not authorized to tell; and claimed he was authorized to do what he wants in that office. Benitez testified that the first he heard of the union organization was on that day when Rivera suggested that Benitez was firing him because of his union activities. Benitez testified he had a discussion of the discharge in the office with all the agents and Rivera on Friday, March 10. Although some employees thought the Union was the reason, Benitez informed them it was lack of sales. In support of Benitez's testimony, the Respondent presented the following figures on Rivera's net production during his period of employment (Resp. Exh. 1): 8 Net Sales Premiums Weekly Monthly Oct. 10/25 $6.08 Nov. $19.45 11/1 5.23 11/8 2.25 11/15 4.77 11/22 4.61 11/29 Dec. 4.71 12/6 (1.51) 12/13 .16 12/20 2.35 12/27 Jan 32.64 1/3 1/10 1.35 1/17 1.25 1/24 .94 1/31 (1.19) Feb. (9.46) 2/7 2/14 (2.46) 2/21 .21 2/28 (.24) Mar. (24.71) 3/6 (2.74) The Respondent also presented two other documents, purporting to represent Rivera's monthly premium pro- duction. Such documents, Benitez testified, are prepared by the home office around the first of every month and received in the district office between the 4th and the 6th. One of the documents presented (Resp. Exh. 2), was issued April 1 and covered the period February 25 to March 25, which included the last 2 weeks of Rivera's employment. Benitez explained that this document revealed that Rivera had no sales, and that three monthly policies Rivera had sold in January and February lapsed, and one long-time policy was surrendered for cash, during the period covered. The net monthly premium loss was $24.71. After Rivera pointed out that the lapses occurred after his discharge, Benitez testified he did not attribute the lapses to Rivera directly; he had presented the document, he said, to show 8 The net sales of weekly and monthly policies are listed separately, plain figures indicate increase, lines, neither increase nor decrease, and figures in parenthesis indicate decrease SECURITY NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. that Rivera had no sales whatsoever during his last 2 weeks, and to verify the net deficit of $24.71 for March shown in Respondent's Exhibit 1. The other of these two documents, Respondent's Exhibit 3, covered Rivera's monthly premium production for the last complete month of his employment (apparently January 25 to February 25). Benitez pointed out that the document revealed the lapse of two policies, for a total loss of $9.46, and no sales during the entire period. The result was a net deficit of $9.46 for February, as shown in Respondent's Exhibit 1. In rebuttal, Rivera presented documents (G.C. Exhs. 9 and 10) compiled from his own records, showing his policy sales from December 1, 1971, until his discharge .9 The Respondent agreed that Rivera's figures are accurate. The documents give the value of the sales by weekly (WP) and monthly (MDO) premium, and then translate the weekly premiums into the monthly equivalent, in the same manner used by the Respondent for that purpose, by multiplying by 4.33: Date of Premium MDO Equiv- Sale alent 12/1/71 $ 1.10 wp $ 4.76 12/16/71 2.34 wp 10.18 12/23/71 5.00 MDO 5.00 1/3/72 9.33 MDO 9.33 1/3/72 1.69 MDO 1.69 1/10/72 .87 wp 3.77 1/10/72 1.04 wp 4.50 1/12/72 1.90 wp 8.25 1/17/72 3.47 MDO 3.47 1/17/72 .20 wp .87 1/23/72 13.15 MDO 13.15 1/23/72 .94 wp 4.07 1/26/72 1.04 wp 4.50 1/26/72 5.00 MDO 5.00 1/31/72 11.07 LIDO 11.07 1/31/72 6.90 MDO 6.90 2/16/72 .87 wp 3.77 2/17/72 1.26 wp 5.46 2/17/72 2.11 wp 9.14 2/17/72 .76 wp 3.29 2/22/72° .85 wp 3.68 3/1/72 1.53 wp 6.63 Although, as indicated, the Respondent did not chal- lenge the accuracy of General Counsel's Exhibits 9 and 10, Benitez pointed out that they represent gross sales, while it was for Rivera's alleged net sales deficits that he was fired. When asked why Rivera's March sale 10 was not reflected 9 Rivera testified that G.C. Exh. 9 represented the period December I to January 22, which Benitez had said was the period covered by the monthly bulletins in which he received honorable mention ; and G.C. Exh. 10 represented the period thereafter for which he was fired . However, the dates referred to by Rivera do not conform with those actually given by Benitez, as indicated above . I have therefore combined the figures on these two exhibits for purposes of analysis. 19 G.C. Exh. 10 reflects a weekly premium sale on March 1 , 1972, of 377 on Respondent's Exhibit 2, Benitez testified, first, that "it had not had time to go to the home office and the policy submitted to reflect this register," but that he had taken the sale into account when he decided to fire Rivera. Subsequently, Benitez stated that the reason was that the sale was attributed to another agent after Rivera's departure. B. Analysis and Conclusions Although Rivera expressed concern about his collections and asked Oyola to help him with them, both Benitez and Oyola testified that Rivera's performance was satisfactory in that respect.11 This seems to indicate that few of the policies in his debit lapsed. He could have had a net deficit, therefore, only if he made no sales-the deficit represent- ing the value of the few policies which did lapse in spite of Rivera's efforts to collect the premium on them. In view of the sales shown on General Counsel's Exhibits 9 and 10, this could not have happened. Nevertheless, Benitez testified that this is what, in effect, did happen. In support of Benitez's testimony, the Respondent presented its exhibit 1, set forth above, which was a single sheet of paper apparently typed in the Bayamon office for the hearing in this case or at the time of Rivera's discharge. The figures on it are conclusionary-no breakdown of specific policies lapsed or sold is included. In order to supply some of the missing details, the Respondent presented its exhibits 2 and 3, described above. They are two large sheets which appear to have been produced by some type of computer and which Benitez testified were issued by the Respondent's home office. He said they reflected Rivera's performance-sales and lapses-with regard to monthly policies (no compara- ble sheets were produced for weekly policies) during the periods covered. Respondent's Exhibit 1 gives a net monthly premium deficit for March of $24.71. That figure accords with Respondent's Exhibit 2 which shows a total of $24.71 in lapses and a surrender, and no sales. It was admitted, however, that the lapses and the surrender occurred after Rivera left the Company, and that a sale valued at over $6 is not included in either Respondent's Exhibits 1 or 2. In these circumstances, I find that, if Rivera's March sale was a monthly policy, as Benitez indicated, Rivera's net sales during his last 2 weeks of employment amounted to a $6 net increase in monthly policies; if it was a weekly policy, he had neither an increase nor a deficit in monthly policies. In either case, he did not have a deficit for the period. As to the period January 25 to February 25 which was covered by Respondent's Exhibit 3, and was the first full month after Rivera received honorable mention, that document shows the lapse of two monthly policies totaling $9.46, and no sales. Respondent's Exhibit 1 gives the same figures as a net deficit for monthly policies for February, $1.53, translatable into a $6.63 monthly value. G.C. Exh. 7-H shows that Rivera collected $6.12 for a sale on March 1, 1972, but it is not clear whether it was a weekly or a monthly premium policy. Benitez testified that the company records showed a sale of a $6.12 monthly premium policy by Rivera on March 6, 1972. 11 In these circumstances, I consider the testimony and exhibits regarding Rivera's collections, which do not deal with lapses, immaterial except as specifically indicated herein. 378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD thereby also indicating no sales. However, General Counsel's Exhibits 9 and 10, agreed to accurately reflect gross sales, show that Rivera sold monthly policies valued at $22.97 during that period. In these circumstances, I find that Rivera's net monthly production for this period was an increase of $13.51. As Respondent's Exhibits 2 and 3 and that part of Respondent's Exhibit 1 covering monthly policies during the same periods are therefore demonstrated to be unreliable, I find that the remainder of Respondent's Exhibit 1 covering weekly policies, which Respondent did not attempt to support, is equally unreliable with respect to Rivera's net production. In evaluating Benitez's credibility, I have considered the fact that his testimony regarding Rivera's allegedly poor performance during his last 6 weeks of employment was not supported by the documentary evidence introduced for that purpose. In my opinion, Benitez knew full well that those documents did not accurately reflect Rivera's performance. I have also considered the fact that Benitez's testimony that he discharged Rivera for inefficiency is otherwise unsupported, and that his demeanor did not impress me as that of a truthful person. I therefore discredit Benitez generally. I also discredit Oyola because his testimony as to the reasons he refused to respond to Rivera's plea for help were inconsistent in that he implied on the one hand that Rivera was spending company time engaged in noncompa- ny pursuits for which he had transportation while claiming that his car would not run, and on the other hand that Rivera was performing so efficiently that he did not need help. In addition, Oyola's denials of the antiunion remarks attributed to him were unsupported, and his demeanor was unimpressive. By contrast, I was most favorably impressed with Cruz and Riquelme, based on their demeanor. As the testimony of Rivera and Gonzalez was consistent with theirs, as the sales figures compiled by Rivera were accurate, and as the testimony of these four witnesses was mutually corrobora- tive, I credit them.12 On the basis of the aforesaid credibility resolutions as well as evidence which is not disputed, I make the following findings of fact: Although Cruz and Riquelme were active in the movement to unionize the insurance agents at the Respondent's Bayamon branch office, Rivera was un- doubtedly the leader. It was he who began the discussion among the employees; initially contacted, and maintained contact with, the Umon; and did most of the card soliciting. The Respondent was aware of this by February 12 In thus resolving the credibility issues, I have considered the Respondent's contention that the testimony of the four General Counsel's witnesses "is tainted by a vested interest, and by a frustrated effort on their part to persuade at least 30% of the insurance agents of respondent to accept their leadership in the unionizing movement " However, I find no merit in this contention as Cruz had voluntarily left the Respondent's employ prior to the hearing in this case and therefore can be assumed to have no "vested interest" in' the matter, and because of the factors relied on above. 13 Benitez's and Oyola's reaction to Rivera's requests for help in servicing his debit while his car was being repaired, which was contrary to company practice, as revealed by Rivera and their own testimony, in my opinion further supports the conclusion that the Respondent was deter- mined to get rid of Rivera at all costs 21, when Oyola revealed the fact to Cruz. Three days later, on February 25, Benitez called Rivera in and accused him of insufficient sales and in effect put him on 2 weeks' notice. At the end of the 2 weeks, Benitez fired Rivera for the stated reason that his net sales were running a deficit. The reason given by Benitez, however, was false, as shown by the credible evidence to the contrary, and the credible evidence that Benitez revealed to Rivera that Rivera "bugged him" and that Benitez would just like to get rid of Rivera, and that there was another reason for the discharge which Benitez was not authorized to divulge. Moreover, the following week Benitez impliedly threatened to discharge Gonzalez also for being "one of the instigators of the union." Finally, Supervisor Oyola informed the entire Bayamon complement that the real reason for Rivera's discharge was his solicitation of signatures for the Union.i3 Accordingly, I conclude that the reason given for the discharge of Rivera was a pretext and the real reason was to rid the Respondent of the leader of the union activity, and the discharge was therefore discriminatory and a violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.14 I also conclude that the Respondent independently violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as alleged in the complaint by the following: (1) Supervisor Oyola threatened employee Cruz on March 8 by telling him that Rivera had been discharged for taking signatures for the Union and that the same thing could happen to Cruz if he followed Rivera' s "ideas." (2) Manager Benitez told employee Gonzalez during the week following Rivera's discharge that Gonzalez should start looking for another job because he was one of the instigators of the Union and the company was not going to allow it. (3) In all the above circumstances, Oyola's remark to Riquelme on March 14 that the Company had knowledge that Riquelme had been elected representative of the Umon at Bayamon was intended to and did create the impression that the employees' union activities were under surveillance and coerced Riquelme and the other agents in the exercise of their rights under the Act.15 REMEDY In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, I recommend that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found and, in view of the nature thereof, to cease and desist from infringing in any manner on its employees' rights guaranteed by the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532 (C.A. 4). Having found that the Respondent discriminatorily 14 Contrary to the Respondent's contention , its failure to discharge other union adherents does not necessarily indicate the absence of discriminatory intent with regard to the one it did discharge . See N LR B v. Nabors, 196 F 2d 272, 276 (C.A 5); Luhr Jensen & Sons, Inc., 177 NLRB 475, fn. 17, Sea Life, Incorporated 175 NLRB 982, 986; Santa Fe Drilling Company, 171 NLRB 161, footnote 56, enfd as modified 416 F 2d 725 (C A 9), U S Rubber Company, 147 NLRB 619, 625; Layton Oil Co, 128 NLRB 252, In. 7 15 Hotel Conquistador, Inc d/b/a Hotel Tropicana, 159 NLRB 1220, 1226, enfd as modified 398 F 2d 430 (C A 9); Moore's Seafood Products, Inc, 152 NLRB .683, enfd 369 F.2d 488 (CA 7) In view of the above conclusions, I find it unnecessary to decide whether Oyola's remarks to Cruz on February 21 constituted an additional violation of Section 8(a)(I) as alleged, as it would not affect my recommended Order in any event SECURITY NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. discharged Aureo Rivera, I also recommend that it be ordered to offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent job, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges, and to make him whole for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination against him, plus interest at 6 percent per annum. F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289; Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 16 ORDER The Respondent, Security National Life Insurance Co., Bayamon, Puerto Rico, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any employee for supporting Union Nacional de Trabajadores, or any other union. (b) Threatening employees with discharge for engaging in union activities or for agreeing with employees who do engage in such activities. (c) Creating the impression of surveillance of employee union activity. (d) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Auero A. Rivera full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for his lost earnings in the manner set forth in the section of the Administrative Law Judge's decision entitled "Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this recommended Order. (c) Post at its office in Bayamon, Puerto Rico, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix," in English and Spanish.17 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 24, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20 379 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 16 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec . 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 Sec. 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. 17 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 National 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." APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT discharge any of you for supporting Union Nacional de Trabajadores or any other union. WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge you for engaging in union activities or for agreeing with those who do engage in union activities. WE WILL NOT create the impression that we are engaging in surveillance of your union activities. WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of rights guaranteed to employees by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. WE WILL offer Aureo A. Rivera immediate and full reinstatement to the job he held prior to his discharge on March 6, 1972, or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent job, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges. WE WILL make Aureo A. Rivera whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result of his discriminatory discharge, plus interest at 6 percent per annum. SECURITY NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. 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. Any questions concern- ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Pan Am Building, Seventh Floor, P. O. Box U U, 255 Ponce de Leon Avenue, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 00919, Telephone 622-2424, Ext. 0225.