Union Nacional de Trabajadores

UNION NACIONAL DE TRABAJADORES 429 Union Nacional de Trabajadores and Its Agent Arturo Grant and Macal Container Corporation. Case 24- CB-888 July 23, 1975 DECISION AND ORDER On October 31, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Eugene E. Dixon issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondents and the Gener- al Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs, and the Charging Party filed exceptions.' The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge as modified herein. We find merit in the exceptions taken by the Gen- eral Counsel and Charging Party to the Administra- tive Law Judge's failure to find that Respondents violated Section 8(b)(I)(A) by violently assaulting the president of the Charging Party in the presence of employees of the Charging Party. The assault oc- curred in the course of an attempt by Respondents to force the Charging Party to reinstate some employees whose terminations were a matter of dispute. That Respondents would resort to such tactics in enforc- ing their demands would, in the circumstances of this case, tend to have a coercive effect upon employees regarding their own exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act. The fact that there was no evidence of a strike being conducted on the date the assault oc- curred does not in itself negate the potential coercive effect on interested employees.3 We therefore find that Respondents further violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by virtue of their assault on Mr. Calderon. We also find, however, that one of the incidents of 8(b)(1)(A) violation found by the Administrative Law Judge is not supported by the evidence. The Administrative Law Judge found that on two sepa- rate occasions Miguel A. Ortiz-Martinez was threat- ened by Respondents in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A). One of these occasions was on May 28, 1974, and the other was approximately 2 weeks earli- i Respondents' request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record and briefs adequately present the issues and positions of the parties. 2 The Respondents have excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibili- ty unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. 3 Contrary to the Administrative Law Judge, we read the uncontroverted testimony of witness Ortiz as evidence that employees of the Charging Party were on strike on April 23, 1974, the day after this incident. er. Ortiz testified that he was employed by the Charg- ing Party on May 27, 1974. Since the earlier incident occurred at a time when there is no evidence that Ortiz was an employee, the occurrence he described in his testimony is insufficient to constitute restraint or coercion of employees within the meaning of Sec- tion 8(b)(1)(A). Finally, we agree with the Administrative Law Judge that Respondents impliedly threatened Ortiz during a recess at the hearing in the instant proceed- ing when, after Ortiz had completed his testimony regarding earlier incidents of alleged coercion, Re- spondent Grant said to him, "The street is lonely at night." We think this implied threat was directed at Ortiz' giving of testimony in support of the complaint herein and was for that reason violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A).4 THE REMEDY As we have found that the midhearing threat to Ortiz was a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) for a dif- ferent reason than the other violations already found, and as we have found an additional violation of Sec- tion 8(b)(1)(A) in the assault on Calderon, we shall modify the recommended Order accordingly.' As we find that Respondents' conduct herein is similar to conduct violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) as found in the cases of Union Nacional de Trabajadores and Its Agent, Alcides Serrano (Jacobs Constructors Company of Puerto Rico), 219 NLRB No. 65, and Union Nacional de Trabajadores and Comite Organi- zador Obreros en Huelga de Catalytic (Catalytic Indus- trial Maintenance Co., Inc.), 219 NLRB No. 66, both issued on this date, we shall expand the scope of the Order to enjoin the restraining or coercing of em- ployees of the Charging Party or of any other em- ployer in Puerto Rico, and to require extraordinary measures concerning the publication and distribution of the usual notice, so as to better effectuate the poli- cies of the Act and serve the public interest. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board hereby orders that Respondent, Union Nacional de Trabajadores, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico, its officers, agents, and representatives, and Respon- dent Arturo Grant while acting as agent of Respon- d International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 34, AFL-CIO (Protection Alarms, Inc.), 208 NLRB 639 (1974). 3 The finding of a violation by the Administrative Law Judge which we have reversed, because Ortiz was not an employee at the time, was similar to other violations we have found. Therefore the reversal does not affect the remedy provided herein. 430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD dent Union Nacional de Trabajadores, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Restraining or coercing employees of Macal Container Corporation or of any other employer in Puerto Rico by assaulting or threatening assault or other damage to employees, to representatives of em- ployers, or to anyone else for the purpose of prevent- ing employees from working for Macal or any other employer, or preventing employees from testifying fully and truthfully at a hearing conducted by the National Labor Relations Board. (b) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action to effectu- ate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its offices and meeting places in Puerto Rico copies of the attached notice marked "Appen- dix." 6 Copies of said notice, in English and in Span- ish, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Re- gion 24, after being duly signed by Arturo Grant and an authorized representative of the Respondent Union, shall be posted by it immediately upon re- ceipt thereof and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its mem- bers are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other ma- terial. (b) Forthwith mail copies of said notice, in Eng- lish and in Spanish, to the said Regional Director, after said copies have been signed as provided above, for mailing of said notice by the Regional Director to each employee in Puerto Rico of Macal Corporation, and to Macal Container Corporation, for posting by it, if willing, at its premises at any location in Puerto Rico in places where notices to employees are cus- tomarily posted. (c) Publish said notice, at Respondent Union's ex- pense, in all newspapers of general distribution pub- lished in Puerto Rico, and in any newspaper of Re- spondent Union, in each case in the language in which the newspaper is printed. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 24, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith. MEMBER KENNEDY, dissenting in part: For the reasons fully stated in my dissenting opin- ion in Catalytic Industrial Maintenance Co., Inc., 219 NLRB No. 66, issued this date, I dissent from my colleagues' refusal to award backpay to those em- ployees who were prevented from working by Re- spondents' unlawful restraint and coercion. As in Catalytic and Jacobs Constructors Company of Puerto Rico, 219 NLRB No. 65, also issued this date, agents of Respondent Nacional, particularly Respondent Arturo Grant, its president, threatened employees and company officials with physical harm if they attempted to undermine the strike effort. In addition, according to the credited testimony, Grant pushed Macal President Calderon down a flight of stairs, requiring his hospitalization for ap- proximately 5 months. Miquel A. Ortiz-Martinez tes- tified that three union officials-Grant, Castro-Ra- mos, and Sampson-"were not allowing employees to go into work." Ortiz-Martinez himself was warned by Sampson that "you might come out in a coffin if you go in there." Jose Ramon-Malabet testified that he "and a few others" were approached at the plant gate by approx- imately seven union agents, including Grant, and were told, "This is Union Nacional and we are not responsible for what will happen to you. Get the hell out of here." Grant subsequently placed his hand over Malabet's mouth and, with reference to the plant, warned, "Don't try to get in there, we already told you you can't go in there." Finally, Grant stated that, if the employees went inside, "the [Respondent Nacional's agents] would blow the top of their heads off. This is Union Nacional and we kill people. So leave." On the basis of this credited testimony and for the reasons stated in my Catalytic dissent, supra, I would award backpay for wages lost on account of Respon- dents' unlawful conduct. 6 In the event that this 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 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 AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT assault anyone or threaten any- one with assault or other damage for the pur- pose of preventing employees of Macal Contain- er Corporation or of any other employer in Puerto Rico from working for Macal or any other employer, or preventing them from testify- ing fully and truthfully at a hearing conducted by the National Labor Relations Board. WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees in any other manner in the exercise of the rights UNION NACIONAL DE TRABAJADORES guaranteed them in the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, except as a condition of employment as provided in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. UNION NACIONAL DE TRABAJADORES DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE EUGENE E. DIXON, Administrative Law Judge: Upon charges filed on April 24, 1974, by Macal Container Cor- poration alleging that Union Nacional de Trabajadores and its Agent Arturo Grant had engaged in and were en- gaging in unfair labor practices in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), herein called the Act, a representative of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the General Counsel and the Board, issued a complaint dated June 10, 1974, alleging violations by Respondent of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. The complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleged in substance that the Respondent had engaged in various acts of intimidation and violence or threats of such and blocked the access of employees to the Company's plant. In its an- swer Respondent denied the commission of any unfair la- bor practices. Pursuant to notice the matter was heard at Hato Rey, Puerto Rico, August 6 and 7, 1974, with all parties repre- sented by counsel. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observa- tion of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS INVOLVED The Employer is and has been at all times material here- in a corporation duly organized under, and existing by vir- tue of, the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. At all times material the Employer has maintained an office and place of business at Julio N. Matos Industrial Park, in the city of Carolina, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, herein called the plant, where it is, and has been at all times mate- rial, engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of paper boxes and related products. During the past year, which is representative of its annual operations generally, the Employer, in the course and conduct of its business, purchased and caused to be transported and delivered to its plant, cardboard and other goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, which were transported and delivered to its plant in interstate commerce directly from points lo- cated outside of Puerto Rico. The.Employer is and has been at all times material an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED 431 Union Nacional de Trabajadores is, and has been at all times material, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Manuel Calderon, president of Macal, testified that about noon on April 22, 1974, Union President Arturo Grant accompanied by two men I entered Respondent's plant and in the presence of about four employees asked Calderon for "the cards of the employees who had re- signed" demanding that he "put them to work immedi- ately." Calderon, surrounded by the three men, asked who Grant was and what he was doing there. Grant told Cal- deron that Calderon knew who he was and said "You son- of-a-bitch, put those people to work." Calderon said that they had resigned voluntarily and Grant pushed him down on the steps leading to the office mezzanine. Calderon then shouted to his wife Lydia who was on the office mezzanine to lock herself in the office. Hearing this Grant again pushed Calderon and headed up the stairs. On the mezzanine Grant called down to his two com- panions to bring Calderon up to the office. In the mean- time Mrs. Calderon, becoming hysterical, pleaded with the two men to leave her husband alone because he "suffers from a heart condition and . . . could die." At this, one of the men laughed and said "F- him, let him die." At this point Mrs. Calderon came down the stairs. One of the men told her "Get the hell out of here, the one we want is him." They also said that they were going to stay with Calderon and "were going to keep the factory." Mrs. Calderon then left the plant and "all of a sudden" Calderon "broke loose" and joined his wife outside who had gotten into their car with a company employee at the wheel. Calderon got in the car and he and his wife were driven away. According to Calderon's further testimony, he returned to the plant that evening in the company of a friend, his lawyer, and the doctor who had attended his wife who had been hospitalized that day, as was Calderon the following day, both of whom were not released until September 30. At this point they found two policemen outside. When they went to unlock the plant they found the lock jammed with little pieces of wood and were forced to "wrench away the hasp" to gain entrance. Inside they discovered that the res- ignation card of one employee and some other unidentified cards and a keyholder with keys to the office and plant were missing. Mrs Calderon substantially corroborated her husband's testimony. The only one to testify about the foregoing incident on behalf of Respondent was Arturo Grant. He testified that he and his two companions met Calderon as he was com- ing out of his office. Grant introduced himself as president of the Union Nacional and stated that he was there on official business. Calderon replied that he had nothing to 1 It was established that one of the two men accompanying Grant was Elias Castro who, although present at the hearing, did not testify 432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD say to Grant or any union and referred Grant to his law- yer. Grant replied that his concern was to get recognition for the Union and to discuss the discharge that morning of seven employees. At this point, according to Grant, Calderon's wife "came out of the office and she came out quite nervous. She expressed herself as though somebody was going to jump on her and her husband and she also expressed herself that nothing should be done to her hus- band because he had a heart condition and nothing should be done to her because she was a cripple." At that moment they "all started downstairs, being that Mr. Calderon had indicated that [they all] could go the offices of his lawyer." As to what happened at this point Grant testified as fol- lows: After that Mrs. Calderon showed a very nervous state and Mr. Elias Castro spoke to Mr. Calderon and told him he thought that it would be best if he took his wife some place for her nervous condition. At that moment Mrs. Calderon called one of the employees so that he could take her to the hospital. Meanwhile we asked Mr. Calderon for the letters that he had made these employees sign as resignations, and one involved spe- cifically Mr. Alberto-I do not remember the last name-Mr. Calderon told Mr. Alberto that if he did not sign that letter of resignation, that for the money he owed Mr. Calderon he would be taken to court, that he did not want any of his employees unionized, and in respect to each employee, something similar had occurred, and that is why we were insisting on discussing this problem. After Mrs. Calderon went outside Calderon said, "Let me go out to my wife" which he did, joining her in the car and leaving. After that Grant told Calderon's son, Rober- to, to close the plant which Roberto did.2 In his testimony Grant denied speaking offensively or threateningly to Cal- deron or at any time touching him. He also denied saying that he was going to take over the plant. In addition to my observation of the witnesses, the fact that Castro did not testify (although being present at the hearing), that for no apparent reason Mrs. Calderon, ac- cording to Respondent's testimony, became so upset as to prompt a suggestion by Castro that she have the attention of a doctor, I credit the General Counsel's version of the foregoing. Nonetheless, in the absence of a showing that there was a strike in progress at Macal at this time 3 or other concert- ed activity of the employees upon which the Union's ac- tions could have influence, I find that the above conduct of Respondent, however reprehensible or accountable under other laws, cannot be said to have coerced or interfered with the employees' rights within the meaning of Section 2 Roberto Calderon apparently was estranged from his father and testi- fied at the call of Respondent corroborating Grant's testimony that Roberto locked up the plant. 3 The complaint alleged a strike commencing on or about April 23. No evidence was offered to support this allegation . The earliest that a strike was indicated came in the testimony of Assistant Manager Flores who related that on May 6 he waited at the plant about noon and that the employees had "shouted from outside that they were on strike and that they did not want to enter in to work." 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Here there was no evidence of any kind of action being engaged in by the employees in which they could exercise their Section 7 right to join or refrain from and thus nothing that the Union's conduct could in- fluence within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Cf. Local 140, United Furniture Workers of America, CIO (Brooklyn Springs Corporation), 113 NLRB 815 (1955); International Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO, et al. (W. T. Smith Lumber Company), 116 NLRB 507 (1956). Miguel A. Ortiz Martinez, an employee of Macal called by the General Counsel, testified that on arriving at the plant the early morning of May 28, he went across the street to get a coke from a portable canteen. While there he was approached by Union Agents Carmen Sampson and Elias Castro. About what transpired Ortiz testified: ... the girl . . . opened up the coke and she ap- proached me and she said to me, "I heard that you were going to buy the factory." I did not know what to tell her. So the bearded man [Castro] was already next to her, which they talked together from across the street to me. So I said to her, "I might buy the factory, I might buy it." So she says to me, "Do you know what you are going to get into it, do you know how to operate that factory?" I says to her, "Yes, I know." So then she says to me, "You had better think about it before you do any move," and I says to her, "Why?" Then she says to me, just to be careful, you might come out in a coffin if you do go in there." By this time Arturo Grant also was present. Sampson went on to tell Ortiz that before going into the factory he might have to fight with Grant. Ortiz said it didn't bother him. Grant then said, "Be careful, something might happen to you." Then Castro said, "Don't forget, sometimes you have to walk alone in the street." Ortiz then said, "All right." Castro said, "Okay, be careful." According to Ortiz' further testimony Grant and his two union cohorts were not allowing employees to go into work. Ortiz was waiting for the supervisors to open up and let him in. The union trio told him he could not go in to work. Ortiz said he was going in. About 2 weeks previous- ly, according to Ortiz' further testimony, Sampson and Castro had given him a union leaflet telling inter alia about "a professional strikebreaker" dying "upon attempting to cross the picket line" of Respondent Union. They told him "Here, read this carefully." They also told him, "You have a nice truck 4 take care of it.... " Adding that it would not look nice if something happened to it. Ortiz told them nothing was going to happen to it. He was again warned not to do any work for Macal. After Ortiz finished his testimony a short recess was tak- en. At the resumption of the hearing the General Counsel asked for and was granted permission to recall Ortiz. At this time Ortiz testified that as he was walking in the corri- dor, Grant said to him that "The street is lonely at night." About the immediate foregoing, Grant testified that Or- tiz initiated the recess conversation speaking in a menacing tone, wanting to know if Grant knew Mr. Chu Castro, who wanted to talk to Grant. According to Grant he told Ortiz 4 Ortiz apparently maintained a trucking business in addition to his em- ployment at Macal UNION NACIONAL DE TRABAJADORES 433 that he did know Chu Castro, that he was a friend, and that he was willing to talk to him about "whatever he wanted." Grant further testified that he told Ortiz nothing else. About the incident of May 28, Grant testified that when Ortiz said that he was "very interested" in buying Macal, Grant told Ortiz "It wasn't proper for him to get involved in Macal for the simple reason that there were problems there and there had been a petition filed with charges against Macal." Ortiz replied that he would get into what- ever he chose and that nobody was going to "impose" any- thing on him. At this time Sampson and Castro were pre- sent. Apparently Castro made some remark to which, according to Grant, Ortiz replied as follows: Mr. Ortiz replied to Mr. Castro that he was the type of person who did not let anybody stop him in whatever he wanted to do and that he had the people as well as the power to do what he wanted to do in Macal, and at the same time motioned towards his waist as if he either had a revolver or a pistol. To that, Mr. Castro replied that no one was going to work there unless they were the employees from Macal, and in reply to that he stated that he had his own employees to work in Macal and that no one who had worked for Mr. Calderon was going to work for him. It is the first word that I have had that Mr. Ortiz was employed by Macal as a machine I don't know what, because all the time he was going around letting it be known that he was the owner of Macal and that he was going to do as he pleased. Grant also testified that he did not believe that Sampson said anything. Asked by his counsel if anyone had told Ortiz that if he went into the plant to work he would be taken out in a coffin, Grant made a rambling reply that did not answer the question. Jose Ramon Malabet, an employee first hired by Macal on May 24, 1974, was called by the General Counsel and testified that prior to starting time at the plant on the morning of May 28, a group of about eight people, among whom was Grant, approached him and a few others sitting under a van waiting to go to work. Grant told them to leave the premises because there was a strike-that "This is Union Nacional and we are not responsible for what will happen to you." Malabet said he was told to come to work. Grant said "Get the hell out of here" in such a manner that Malabet and the others were frightened and left to go to a gas station nearby. Just prior to this someone apparently called to Malabet from the plant. Malabet was about to answer when Grant put his hand on Malabet's chest say- ing, "Don't try to get in there, we already told you you can't go in there." Grant followed Malabet and his companions to the gas station. There Malabet approached Grant and explained he had been sent for and could not leave until he talked to Flores, the assistant manager. Grant said if employees went in "they would blow the top of [their] heads off." Nonetheless Macal went back to the plant and tole Willy (unidentified) "that the boys did not want to work" and were leaving. At this point he was again accosted by Grant (by himself now) who told him "You son-of-a-bitch didn't we tell you you couldn't go in there." Malabet told him "I was told to come to work . . . don't come and get wise because you are alone now." Grant's reply was "This is Union Nacional and we kill people. So leave." At this point some policemen came out and Malabet left. From his cross-examination it appears that policemen were in the area at all times but that Malabet made no complaint to them. According to Grant he and the union people asked Mal- abet and his companions if they were employed by Macal. Learning that they were, Grant asked if they were aware of the conflict that was going on between Macal and Union Nacional-what the problem was. Macal said he didn't and the conversation continued for about 15 or 20 minutes in a conversational tone with the policemen in the immedi- ate area. As to the foregoing matters, Union Organizer Carmen Sampson testified that in the company of Union Represen- tatives Castro and Grant she arrived at the Macal plant early in the morning on April 28.5 There they found about four people waiting inside the plant gate to go to work. She and her two companions walked on to the premises to talk to the waiting employees. A policeman (who explained "that he was there to protect the people that were there" ) accompanied them and "stayed by the side of Arturo Grant" while he addressed the employees. After Grant's explanation that there was a strike going on at the plant the waiting employees "voluntarily walked out" and joined the strike. Sampson further testified that on the same occasion Or- tiz arrived at the scene "in a very arrogant manner, provok- ing manner." As to what took place with Ortiz, Sampson testified as follows: He stated that he was going to buy the plant and that he was going to do as he saw fit and Elias Castro told him that he could not and he explained to him the problem, the conflict that we had at the plant and that we were representing the workers. Mr. Ortiz told Elias Castro that he had better be careful because he had a cannon [sic] or a gun and he showed him by putting his hand towards his waist and he said that he was willing to blow the top of anybody's head and before the day was over, two or three would fall. Sampson also testified that Ortiz' "manner was so arro- gant that Elias Castro felt very uncomfortable and they almost came to blows." At no time did Sampson deny tell- ing Ortiz that if he went into the plant he might come out in a coffin. Conclusions As to the Ortiz matter, while Ortiz may have demonstrat- ed some defiance toward the union representatives, I am inclined to credit Ortiz in general and find that Respon- dent Union through its representatives threatened him with death on May 28, 1974, if he went to work for the Charging Party. I also find that a similar threat had been implied 5 She later testified that it was either April or May 28 Then insisted that it was April 28, explaining that she knew because that was the date of her "anniversary " It is clear that she is talking about the May 28 incident 434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD about 2 weeks earlier in the leaflet Ortiz was asked to care- fully read. Additional harm or damage was threatened on May 28 in connection with Ortiz' truck and was also im- plied in the remark made to him by Grant during a recess at the hearing. I also believe and find that regardless what specific means Grant and company may have used to persuade Malabet and the other employees to join in a strike against Macal, the Union also indulged in threats and intimidation exceeding the bounds of propriety in achieving their objec- tive of preventing the employees from going to work. By the foregoing conduct Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A)• IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Union set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Compa- ny described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Union Nacional de Trabajadores is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and Arturo Grant is, and at all times material has been, its agent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act. 2. Macal Container Corporation is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and business ac- tivities affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the Act. 3. By restraining and coercing employees of Macal as found herein, Respondents have committed and are com- nutting unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec- tion 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices I shall recommend an order that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac- tion as specified below, which is necessary to remedy and remove the effects of the unfair labor practices and to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act. The Charging Party has referred to several previous cases involving this Union as a Respondent and asks for a much more extensive remedy than to date has been gener- ally approved by the Board. Thus, in addition to a broad order it requests: (1) that the Union be required to mail individual notices in understandable language to each of its employee members throughout Puerto Rico; (2) reim- bursement by the Union of all attorneys fees and all costs of litigation both to the Charging Party and the Board; and (3) back wages to those employees who were prevented from working as a result of Respondents' conduct. The only one of these requests joined in by General Counsel was the request for a broad order. Similar extensive requests were made and treated at length in two recently issued Administrative Law Judge decisions .6 I shall restrict the scope of my recommenda- tions to a broad order as requested by the General Counsel and defer to the Board consideration of the remedy matter in the light of all three cases. [Recommended Order omitted from publication.] 6 Union Nacional de Trabajadores and Comite Organizador Obreros en Hu- elga Catalytic, Cases 24-CC-168 and 24-CB-877 [219 NLRB No. 661 issued by Administrative Law Judge Goldberg on September 30, 1974; and Union Nacional de Trabajadores and its agent, Alcides Serrano, Case 24-CB-885 issued by Administrative Law Judge Klein on September 26, 1974 (219 NLRB No 651.