Longshoremen's Local 1575

34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD International Longshoremen 's Association, Local 1575 and San Juan Freight Forwarders , Inc. and Puerto Rico Marine Management, Inc. and Maritime Transportation Management, Inc. of Puerto Rico. Cases 24-CC-190, 24-CC-191, and 24-CC-192 September 20, 1976 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND PENELLO On April 26, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Pe- ter E. Donnelly issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep- tions and a brief in support thereof. Puerto Rico Ma- rine Management, Inc., filed an answering brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. 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 and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge, and hereby orders that the Respondent, International Long- shoremen's Association, Local 1575, San Juan, Puer- to Rico, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. i The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to over- rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility 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 DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE PETER E. DONNELLY, Administrative Law Judge: The first charge herein was filed on June 3, 1975, by San Juan Freight Forwarders, Inc., herein called San Juan Freight (Case 24-CC-190). On June 13, 1975, charges were filed by Puerto Rico Marine Management, Inc., herein called PRMMI (Case 24-CC-191), and Maritime Transportation Management, Inc, of Puerto Rico, herein called MTM (Case 24-CC-192). A consolidated complaint and notice of hearing thereon was issued by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board on September 16, 1975, alleging that International Longshoremen's Association, Local 1575, herein called Respondent or Union, violated Section 8(b)(4)(u)(B) of the Act as detailed herein. The an- swer thereafter was timely filed by Respondent. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before me at Hato Rey, Puer- to Rico, on October 15, 16, 17 and November 4 and 5, all in 1975 'Briefs have been timely filed by General Counsel, Respondent, and Charging Parties PRMMI and MTM, which have been duly considered.' FINDINGS OF FACT 1. EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS A. Background In June 1974, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico estab- lished a public corporation called Puerto Rico Maritime Shipping Authority (herein called PRMSA) for the purpose of providing ocean common freight transportation between Puerto Rico and points outside thereof and for this pur- pose it acquired facilities such as vessels, trailer vans, shore installations, and related facilities of certain private com- mercial carriers engaged in said transportation: These in- cluded Sea Land Service, Inc. (herein called Sea Land), and Transamerican Trailer Transport, Inc. (herein called TTT). Sea Land and TTT, as private commercial carriers, carried consolidated cargo between Puerto Rico and the United States for certain nonvessel operating common ear- ners (NVOCC), including San Juan Freight, Sea' Freight Express of Puerto Rico, Inc. (herein called Sea Freight), and International Container Express, Inc. (herein called International), also known as consolidators. After PRMSA acquired Sea, Land and TTT, PRMSA contracted with PRMMI to manage and operate Sea Land and also con- tracted with MTM to manage and operate TTT. B. Jurisdiction During the past 12 months, the complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that both PRMMI and MTM derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000 from the above-described operations. The complaint also alleges that San Juan Freight is a Puerto Rican corporation with its principal office and place of business in Carolina, Puer- to Rico. Since June 1972, San Juan Freight has been and is engaged as a NVOCC in the performance of freight for- warding services, including the consolidating and contain- erization of less than trailer or van load (LTL) cargo and removal of such cargo for various customers in connection with freight shipments by ocean-going vessels between ports of the United States, including New York, New Jer- i The delay in issuance of this Decision was occasioned by the fact that the official transcript for the day of November 4, 1975, was not made avail- able to me until April 19. 1976 226 NLRB No. 10 LONGSHOREMEN'S LOCAL 1575 sey ports, and Puerto Rico. The complaint alleges, and it is not contested, that San Juan Freight annually receives rev- enues in excess of $50,000 for performing said services for customers shipping goods directly between the United States and Puerto Rico. Based upon the above facts and the entire record herein, I conclude that the assertion of Board jurisdiction in this case is appropriate and I so find. However, apart from the monetary jurisdictional amounts necessary to meet the Board's jurisdictional yardsticks, the Union contends that the Board is without "jurisdiction" since PRMMI and MTM are actually alter egos of the government of Puerto Rico and accordingly should be classified as exempt employers under Section 2(2) of the Act. However, even conceding, without decid- ing that PRMMI and MTM are exempt employers, they are nevertheless "persons" within the scope and protection of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. Respondent further contends that the National Labor Relations Board is without jurisdiction in this case inas- much as a charge was filed by MTM on June 25, 1975, with the Labor Relations Board of Puerto Rico alleging a refus- al by Respondent to submit to arbitration a contractual controversy concerning the application of the "containeri- zation provisions" of the contract to certain consolidators and the violation of the no-strike clause of the contract. The Union concedes that it is refusing to submit to such arbitration but nevertheless contends that, since the matter is before the Labor Relations Board of Puerto Rico, that the Board is accordingly without jurisdiction.. In this regard I note that the resolution of this charge before the Labor Relations Board of Puerto Rico will not determine the underlying issue in the instant case. The La- bor Relations Board of Puerto Rico would only order arbi- tration of that matter if it concluded that the matter is arbitrable. Any determination on the merits would be made, if ever, in a subsequent arbitration. Moreover, the charging party in the Labor Relations Board of Puerto Rico case is only MTM. It is entirely conceivable that any relief would be limited to MTM, while in the instant case not only MTM but also PRMMI and San Juan Freight have filed charges and are entitled to relief if a substantive violation is determined under Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. In these circumstances, I deem it inappropriate for the Board to defer to the authority of the Labor Relations Board of Puerto Rico and conclude that such a submission does not deprive the Board of jurisdiction? II. LABOR ORGANIZATION Based upon the entire record herein, the stipulations of the parties, and particularly the collective-bargaining agreements in evidence, I conclude that Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 2 In addition it should be noted that the legality of the containerization rules of the contract, which rules constitute the underlying issue in the Puer- to Rican Labor Board case, have already been adjudicated by the Board as hot cargo contracts within the meaning of Sec. 8 (e). International Longshoremen 's Association, AFL-CIO (Consolidated Express, Inc), 221 NLRB 956 (1975) III. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Facts 3 35 The advent of contamerized vessels in the shipping in- dustry had the effect, inter alia, of reducing the number of man hours required to load and unload vessels. In an effort to compromise with the ILA for the loss of manpower, various collective-bargaining agreements were negotiated with "containerization" provisions. Since 1968 the Union had contracts with both Sea Land and TTT containing such provisions. When PRMMI and MTM came into exis- tence, the Union entered into collective-bargaining agree- ments with them containing substantially the same provi- sions, which read as follows: ARTICLE VII 4 CONTAINERIZATION The parties agree to incorporate in this "Memoran- dum of Agreement" the "Containerization" clause contained in the contract of the Port of New York with respect to the 50 mile radius, with the following exceptions: It is mutually agreed between the parties that those consolidators/forwarders presently engaged in the Puerto Rican trade using the service of the com- pany will continue to handle their cargo in the same manner as heretofore. The master listing of those con- solidators/forwarders presently engaged in the Puerto Rican trade is as follows: A listing of consolidators exempted by the above lan- guage was written into the contracts immediately following the above provisions as they appeared in the contract. It is undisputed that San Juan, Freight, Sea Land, and Interna- tional are not exempted consolidators. The containerization clause thus incorporated into the union contracts with PRMMI and MTM provide, in rele- vant part, that any LTL cargo in a van (trailer) consolidat- ed within a 50-mile radius from the center of any North Atlantic District port shall be "stuffed" and "stripped" by ILA labor at longshore rates on a waterfront facility under the terms and conditions of the General Cargo Agreement. The same handling is required for consolidated vans des- tined for consolidators located within the 50-mile radius of said port.' Despite the fact that San Juan Freight was not an, ex- empted consolidator, the ILA did not attempt to apply the "50-mile" rule until sometime in February 1975. Until that time San Juan Freight had taken LTL vans from the dock- side marshaling yards of PRMMI with its own truckers directly to its facilities, in Carolina, Puerto Rico, where it 3 Ortiz, Sr was the Respondent's only witness His testimony concerning the events set forth below was somewhat general, imprecise, and necessarily without corroboration To the extent that Ortiz, Sr's testimony conflicts with the accounts of the General Counsel's witnesses, I conclude that the testimony of those witnesses is more reliable and I credit them. 4 Taken from the PRMMI contract with the Union expiring September 30, 1977 (G C Exh 2). 5 These "containerization" provisions are set out in full in the 1968 Gen- eral Cargo Agreement between NYSA and International Longshoremen's Association (G C. Exh 5) By definition, as set forth in the General Cargo Agreement, "stripping" means the act of removing cargo from a container, "stuffing" means the act of placing cargo in a container. 36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD was "stripped" and "stuffed" with its own employees. The Union, however, interpreted the rule to require that such vans should be "stripped" and "stuffed" at PRMMI's dockside facilities by ILA members before being transport- ed to San Juan Freight's Carolina facilities, since the con- tainerization rules applied and San Juan Freight was not an exempted consolidator under the ILA contracts with PRMMI and MTM. On or about February 23, 1975, Ramon Moncao, the union representative, advised Antonio Feliciano, the man- ager of PRMMI,6 that upon instructions from Guillermo Ortiz, Sr., president of the Union, San Juan vans would no longer be permitted to leave the PRMMI marshaling yards as heretofore. Thereupon, Feliciano called Ortiz, Sr. who told Feliciano that since San Juan Freight was not on the list of exempted consolidators, he was not going to allow delivery of the vans to the San Juan Freight facilities in Carolina unless they were first stripped and stuffed at the dockside warehouses of PRMMI with ILA members. Feli- ciano protested that it had been the practice not to require such handling, even though San Juan Freight was not on the list of exempted consolidators. Feliciano also expressed the view that the containerization provisions do not apply to the San Juan Freight vans since they had already been stripped in the United States before coming to Puerto Rico and that the contract provisions did not contemplate strip- ping again in Puerto Rico in those circumstances. Ortiz, Sr. rejected Feliciano's argument saying, in essence, that in his view the contract requires that LTL cargo would have to be unloaded at the PRMMI warehouses pursuant to the "50- mile" provision since San Juan Freight was not a listed consolidator. Ortiz, Sr. also told Feliciano that, if the vans were dispatched to San Juan Freight without first being stripped and stuffed with ILA labor at the PRMMI facili- ties, PRMMI would have a strike. Feliciano testified that out of fear of a strike, he agreed, and incoming vans con- signed to San Juan Freight were held at the PRMMI mar- shaling yards from then until March 11 , 1975. With respect to MTM, Miguel Rossy, former MTM con- troller, testified that in late February 1975 he received a visit from Moncao concerning the matter of dispatching LTL vans consigned to San Juan Freight. Several conver- sations ensued with Guillermo Ortiz, Jr. (vice president of the Union), and Ortiz, Sr. On April 24, 1975, Rossy was called by Ortiz, Sr. saying that he had received a written request for arbitration of the dispute and that he was advis- ing MTM that he was not entertaining the idea of going to arbitration in the matter because he felt it was not a matter for arbitration. Ortiz, Sr. further stated that "he wanted to advise us not to deliver any cargo consigned to San Juan Freight or Sea Freight Express or International Express." 7 Also, he [Ortiz, Sr.] said that delivery of the trailers con- signed to any of these consolidators would "bring a com- plete stoppage of our operations." While he denies ever having called a strike, Ortiz, Sr. testified to a conversation with Rossy concerning van de- hveries to San Juan Freight as follows: "We [the Union] 6 Feliciano had been operations manager for Sea Land in Puerto Rico prior to its acquisition by PRMSA. 7 Neither Sea Freight nor International are exempted consolidators would attempt by all means to convince the Company to cease and stop, cease and desist, on the violations to the contract. If they didn't pay attention to that, there would be no other alternative but to take the appropriate mea- sures." Feliciano also stated that between the date the problem first arose on about February 24, 1974, and March 11, 1975, the date of the first court order directing delivery of certain vans, Ortiz, Sr., on several occasions at the union hall, stated that there were only two ways that PRMMI would be allowed to dispatch the vans to San-Juan Freight; to wit, "either that trailer is unloaded at your (PRMMI) warehouses by ILA labor, or they-San Juan Freight For- warders-come to our shape-up, hire ILA labor and take them to their warehouses to unload the containers." 8 Similarly, Antonio Freedman, a businessman whose goods were being detained at PRMMI -docks because of the dispute, testified that he called the Union and spoke to Ortiz, Jr. in March and April 1975. He was advised by Ortiz, Jr., "Listen, there are no problems here at all except that these people-San Juan Freight-they want to handle the vans, take them to their plant and they have personnel who earn much less money than our people which means that they are hurt." Further, "All we want is that if they will authorize us, if you can get them to authorize us, we will take the vans over to their place and strip them and no sweat." On March 11, 1975, the U.S. District Court in Puerto Rico ordered 20 vans to be delivered to San Juan Freight (G.C. Exh. 8). After having received a copy of the order, Feliciano called Ortiz, Sr., advising him of the order. Ortiz, Sr. responded, "Well, I'm not a part of that order so I don't have to comply and I still insist that it is a violation of the contract and if you deliver those containers there is going to be a general strike because that's a violation of the con- tract." On the following day Feliciano again spoke to Ortiz about this problem and suggested, as a compromise, per- initing delivery of the vans without a strike. Under this plan, Feliciano and Ortiz, Sr. would exchange letters with Feliciano requesting and Ortiz granting a request to' deliver the vans. This was done, but Ortiz, Sr. also made it clear that this was not a permanent concession by saying, "Yes, release the containers, but we feel that it is a violation of the contract and those containers will have to be stripped in the [sic] premises." These 20 vans were delivered without incident thereafter. However, vans shipped via PRMMI during the interim were still not being dispatched and on March 21, 1975, another order was issued by the U.S. District Court for Puerto Rico, directing the delivery of some 21 vans to San Juan Freight. On the same day, Feliciano and Labor Rela- tions Manager Ferdinand Rodriguez met with Ortiz, Sr. in Ortiz, Sr.'s office at the union premises. Again, Ortiz, Sr. took the position that he was not bound by the court's 8 General Counsel amended the complaint to add par. 27(b) which reads, "That during the period between February 24 and March 11, 1975, the exact dates being unknown, Respondent's president told PRMMI's manager, An- tonio Duen [Feliciano] that the problem concerning San Juan Freight For- warders could be solved by ILA stripping either at the waterfront or at San Juan Freight's warehouse in Carolina, Puerto Rico." LONGSHOREMEN'S LOCAL 1575 order since he was not a party to it and otherwise reiterated the position he took on March 11 with respect to the deliv- ery of the vans. Feliciano at this time told Ortiz, Sr. that PRMMI felt it was obliged to deliver the vans under the court's order and that it was going to comply. Ortiz, Sr. took the position that if the vans were delivered he would interpret it as a contract violation and would strike PRMMI. Thereafter Feliciano and Rodriguez contacted PRMMI attorneys and told them that PRMMI would not comply because it would mean a strike. Thereafter on March 25, a hearing was held before the U.S. District Court in Puerto Rico and a stipulation was entered into between attorneys for San Juan Freight, PRMMI, and the ILA, approved by the court, which re- sulted in the delivery of the vans enumerated in the court's order of March 21, and those vans were delivered. Thereafter, however, vans consigned to San Juan Freight were still coming into PRMMI and another court order was obtained on April 18 for the delivery of some 37 more vans to San Juan Freight. The-order was filed and entered on April 12, 1975. On the same date, Feliciano and Rodri- guez again went to Ortiz, Sr. with the court's order and told him that it was PRMMI's intention to comply with the order directing delivery of the vans to San Juan Freight. Ortiz, Sr. told them that they were not to comply with the order, "because otherwise it would mean a strike." Feliciano and Rodriguez left Ortiz, Sr.'s office and later that day about 1:15 p.m. were visited at the PRMMI prem- ises by Ortiz, Jr., who told them that on instructions from his father, Ortiz, Sr., delivery of the vans would result in a strike. About 2 p.m. on April 21, Juan Gonzalez, a trucker for San Juan Freight, came to the PRMMI marshaling yards with a tractor to pick up one of the vans to deliver to San Juan Freight. As Gonzalez was waiting for a San Juan van to go through the checking out process, Ortiz, Jr., in the presence of Feliciano and Rodriguez, told Gonzalez that, if he attempted to take out the van, his instructions were to "pull out" the people. Gonzalez became concerned and asked for time to call his "principals" at San Juan Freight, who instructed him to go ahead and take out the van. Feli- ciano told Gonzalez that, if these were his instructions, the gate was open and to "go ahead and take them out." Gon- zalez pulled out of the yard whereupon Ortiz, Jr. told the ILA employees in the yard that there was a strike and to stop working and they ceased work at this time. Ingress to and egress from the marshaling' yards were blocked by vans. Incoming tractor-trailer drivers were told by ILA em- ployees that a strike was in progress and not to come in. In an effort to resolve the problem Rodriguez called Ortiz, Sr., asking what could be done to put the people back to work. Ortiz, Sr. responded, "The only way to do it is no more San Juan Freight vans being dispatched, take those trailers back." Rodriguez accepted this solution, "stopped delivery of any San Juan Freight vans, and the employees returned to work. The work stoppage lasted for about 1 hour, from approximately 2:3'0 to 3:30 p.m. On the morning of the following day, April 22, 1975, San Juan Freight president, Juan Santos, came to Feliciano's office demanding that vans consigned to San Juan Freight be delivered under the court's order. Feliciano told him, "If 37 you insist that you want them you send your trucker, you pick them up, and they're all yours." Feliciano then gave him identification cards for three specific vans requested by Santos and Santos left. Thereafter Ortiz, Sr. came to Feliciano's office to advise him again against delivery of the vans and Feliciano explained, "We are: in a difficult position, they want their containers, we are open for busi- ness and if they come to pick up their containers we have to dispatch them." Ortiz, Sr. left the office and went to the PRMMI maintenance shop and Feliciano followed him. In the meantime Santos had given one of the identifica- tion cards to one of his truckers, Hector Toledo, who hooked up his tractor to the van and got in to one of the van checkout lanes where an employee took the card from him. After some 15 or 20 minutes he went to retrieve the card which was now in the possession of Ortiz, Sr. Toledo asked him for the card. Ortiz, Sr. replied that the case was in the courts, had been published in the papers, and to put the van back. Toledo complied and returned the van to the marshaling yard. A second driver, Luis Tord, also returned a second San Juan Freight van to the marshaling yard. Subsequently these vans were released on about April 24 pursuant to an agreement between counsel for the parties. A last collection of some 14 San Juan Freight vans which had been accumulating were dispatched on about June 18, 1975, pursuant to another exchange of letters be- tween Feliciano and Ortiz, Sr.-Thereafter San Juan Freight ceased doing business with PRMMI until the 10(1) injunc- tion was issued in the instant case some 2 weeks prior to this hearing. B. Discussion and Analysis It is clear, based on an objective evaluation of the record herein, that the Union's objective was to secure for its own members the work of stripping and stuffing LTL vans con- signed to San Juan Freight. It is also clear that this was not work traditionally performed by ILA members but rather had always been performed by San Juan Freight with its own employees since the inception of that company at its facilities in Carolina, Puerto Rico, far removed from dock- side where ILA members engaged in their traditional work of loading and unloading ships. In an attempt to realize this objective, the Union threat- ened to strike PRMMI and did in fact strike PRMMI as set forth above. It appears from the record herein that the strike threat made to PRMMI by the Union was also made to MTM with respect to the delivery of LTL vans to San Juan Freight, Sea Freight, and International Container Ex- press. The Union defends its position by asserting that PRMMI violated the containerization provisions of its col- lective-bargaining agreement with the Union. Even assum- mg that PRMMI is in violation of the containerization pro- visions of its agreement, it is clear, based on recent Board precedent, that those contract provisions, inasmuch as they incorporate the container provisions of ILA-NYSA agree- ments, are hot cargo agreements within the meaning of Section 8(e) of the Act. International Longshoremen's Asso- ciation, supra. Accordingly, if PRMMI had acquiesced in the Union's demands, it would have been in violation of 38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Act as a party to an 8(e) agreement. In my opinion, the Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, Union may not assert in defense of an 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) viola- and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the tion, the Union's failure to comply with a contract provi- National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I hereby issue sion which, if complied with, would put the Employer in the following recommended: violation of Section 8(e) of the Act. As noted above, the Union's alternative proposal was that the matter could be resolved by hiring ILA employees at a dockside PRMMI shapeup and transporting them to San Juan Freight's facilities in Carolina where they could do the stripping and stuffing. Offering such an alternative solution does not in my opinion legitimize the Union's ac- tions. The essence and effect of this proposal still retains the basic unlawful secondary objective. Only the situs of the stnpping and stuffing would have been changed by the adoption of such an alternative. Accordingly, it is my opin- ion that Respondent herein, by threatening to strike and by striking PRMMI, and by threatening to strike MTM, with an object of forcing them to cease doing business with San Juan Freight, Sea Freight, and International, has violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.' IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with Respondent's opera- tion described in section I, above, have a close and inti- mate relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes bur- dening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recom- mend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and con- clusions, and upon the entire record in this case, I hereby make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Board jurisdiction is properly asserted on the facts of the instant case. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By threatening, coercing, and restraining persons en- gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce where an object thereof is to force or require said persons to cease doing business with other persons, Respondent has engaged m, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(u)(B) of the Act. ORDER 10 The Respondent, International Longshoremen's Associ- ation, Local 1575, San Juan, Puerto Rico, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall. 1. Cease and desist from threatening, coercing, and re- straining Puerto Rico Marine Management, inc., and Mar- itime Transportation Management, Inc. of Puerto Rico, where an object thereof is to force or require said persons to cease doing business with San Juan Freight Forwarders, Inc., Sea Freight Express of Puerto Rico, Inc., and Interna- tional Container Express, Inc. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces- sary to effecutate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its offices and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 11 Copies of said no- tice, in English and Spanish, to be provided by the Region- al Director for Region 24, after being signed by an author- ized representative of the Respondent Union, shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main- tained by it for a period of 60 days thereafter, in conspicu- ous places, including all places where notices to its mem- bers are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notices to the Regional Director for Region 24 for posting by Puerto Rico Marine Management, Inc., Maritime Transportation Management, Inc. of Puerto Rico, San Juan Freight For- warders, Inc., Sea Freight Express of Puerto Rico, Inc., and International Container Express, Inc., such employers being willing, at all places where notices to their employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 24, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 9 The complaint also alleges an 8(b)(4)(u)(B) violation by offers made to Juan Santos, president of San Juan Freight, by Respondent conditioning the release of LTL vans to San Juan Freight upon its employment of union members to strip the vans at the San Juan Freight premises However, as noted above, I have concluded that San Juan is the primary employer Such offers do not constitute pressure on any secondary employer so as to consti- tute a violation of Sec 8 (b)(4) (u)(B) of the Act 1s 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 , 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 11 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 read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " LONGSHOREMEN'S LOCAL 1575 39 APPENDIX NOTICE TO MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Puerto Rico Marine Management, Inc., or Maritime Trans- portation Management, Inc. of Puerto Rico, or any other person engaged in commerce, or in an industry affecting commerce where an object thereof is to force or require it to cease doing business with San" Juan Freight Forwarders, Inc., Sea Freight Express of Puer- to Rico, Inc., or International Container Express, Inc. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 1575