Colegio Universitario del Turabo

150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Fundacion Educativa Ana G. Mendez, Inc. d/b/a Colegio Universitario _ del Turabo and as Puerto Rico Junior College and Asociacion de Maestros Universitarios. Case 24-CA-3639 December 9, 1976 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND WALTHER On June 21, 1976, Administrative Law Judge James M. Fitzpatrick issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions 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 2 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 Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Fundacion Edu- cativa Ana G. Mendez, Inc. d/b/a Colegio Universi- tario del Turabo and as Puerto Rico Junior College, Gurabo, Puerto Rico, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in said recommended Order. I The Administrative Law Judge properly concluded that Pedro J Hernandez Martir, Respondent's academic dean at Colegio Umversitano del Turabo (CUT), was a supervisor within the meaning of Sec. 2(11) of the Act. In addition to the facts relied on by the Administrative Law Judge, we note that in a prior proceeding involving Respondent and the Union, Case 24- RC-5453, the institute directors, over whom Hernandez had authority, were found to be supervisors. One such past director, Hector Villafane, testified at the hearing below that Hernandez had been his supervisor The record also shows that when the Union petitioned for a Board election at the Puerto Rico Junior College, Respondent, which operates both the Junior College and CUT, sent Hernandez a memorandum entitled "Instructions To Our Supervisors." This memorandum listed the conduct which the supervisors could engage in during the election campaign. Hernandez also attended a meeting where the contents of the memorandum were discussed by Respondent's house counsel. 2 The Respondent has 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 (CA. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. The Administrative Law Judge found that on July 7 or 8, 1975, several faculty members asked Respondent's president, Jose F. Mendez, to reconsid- er the discharge of the three instructors involved here and five others. President Mendez first said that he would reconsider the discharge of the 227 NLRB No. 23 instructors, but then added that, because the three instructors involved here had been active in union organizing at CUT, he would not reconsider their cases. Since the Administrative Law Judge found that this incident had been fully litigated, although it had not been alleged in the complaint as an 8(a)(I) violation, he concluded that it was appropriate for hun to deternune the lawfulness of President Mendez' remark He concluded, however, that the remark was privileged because President Mendez had made the remark while he and the faculty members had been processing a grievance. The General Counsel did not except to the Administrative Law Judge's holding that President Mendez' remark was privileged Accordingly, there is no occasion to rule on the correctness of the finding of such a privilege. We adopt the Administrative Law Judge's findingpro forma. Member Jenkins would not adopt pro forma the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that President Mendez' remark made during the process- ing of a grievance was privileged, but would sua sponte disavow this egregious plain error and find an additional 8(a)(1) violation on that basis. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JAMES M. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Law Judge: The principal questions involved in this case are whether-an educational foundation interfered with the rights of faculty members at one at its two colleges by warning certain of them against supporting a union of faculty members, by threatening them with nonrenewal employment contracts if they supported the Union, by giving them the impression that union activities were under surveillance, by interrogat- ing one of them concerning his union membership, and, finally, discriminating against three faculty members by not renewing their employment contracts because they engaged in union and concerted activity. As set out hereinafter, I find that they were discriminated against and on various occasions they were threatened or warned that continued union activity would result in, or had resulted in, their employment contracts not being renewed. The case arises from charges filed August 26, 1975, by Asociacion de Maestros Universitarios (herein Union or AMU) against Fundacion Educativa Ana G. Mendez, Inc. d/b/a Colegio Universitario del Turabo and as Puerto Rico Junior College (herein the Respondent). Based on these charges a complaint issued November 10, 1975, alleging that Respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(axl) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (the Act), by various warnings, threats, interferences, and interrogation and Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by not renewing the employment contracts of three faculty members, Pablo Diaz-Fernandez, Ramon Colon-Lopez and Richard Baldassari-Coca. Respondent answered the complaint admitting the jurisdictional allegations, but denying that certain officials named in the complaint were its agents within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, denying the allegations of interference and coercion, and denying that the contracts of the three faculty members were not renewed because of union or protected activities. The issues were heard before me at Hato Rey, Puerto Rico, on January 19 through 22, 1976. At the close of the hearing the record was left open to receive translations not available at the hearing. Translations subsequently submit- ted are received as part of the record. They, together with various motions and orders relating thereto (which are included for convenience), stipulations (which are re- ceived), and copies in Spanish of certain exhibits already in the record, have been assigned as Exhibits ALJ 1 through COLEGIO UNWERSITARIO DEL TURABO -44 and are included in the record in a separate ALJ exhibit file. The record is now closed. Also after the hearing the General Counsel moved to correct the transcript of testimony in various regards. Respondent- agreed to some and opposed others. The transcript is hereby corrected. - Considering the entire record as described above, my observation of the witnesses, and consideration of the arguments at the hearing and the briefs- of the General Counsel and Respondent, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE EMPLOYER INVOLVED Respondent is a private nonprofit foundation organized under the laws of Puerto Rico. It operates two postsecon- dary educational institutions in Puerto Rico, known as the Puerto Rico Junior College-at Cupey and Rio Piedras, and the Colegio Universitario del Turabo at Gurabo. This latter facility is familiarly known as CUT and sometimes as the Caguas Campus. ' During the year preceding the issuance of the complaint, a period representative of Respondent's operations, it purchased and caused to be delivered to its facilities in Puerto Rico goods and materials valued 'in excess of $50,000 which were transported in interstate Commerce directly from States of the United, States. During the same period Respondent received gross revenues, exclusive of contributions, in excess of $1 million. I find that Respon- dent is an employer engaged in commerce within -the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. The Puerto Rico Junior College (which is not directly involved in the present matter) is a 2-year institution with two campuses as noted above. CUT, located approximately 22 miles from the Junior College campuses, was formerly a third campus of the Junior College. In 1972 CUT became a full 4-year institution offering an advanced curriculum and awarding baccalaureate degrees. The Junior College employs a faculty of about 130 for a student body of about 5,700. The CUT faculty numbers about 74 for a student body of approximately 3,900. CUT annually graduates about 400 and the Junior College about 800. Respondent (the, Foundation) is governed by a board of directors which appoints a president, a vice president, and a vice president for financial affairs. Respondent's president, with the consent of the board of directors, appoints a chancellor for the Junior College and a chancellor for CUT. Each chancellor appoints, with the consent of Respondent's president and board directors, a separate academic dean, dean of administration, dean of students, and various associate deans for the respective institutions . The Junior College and CUT each has its own administrative council and academic board which formulate the academic and administrative policies for their institution. All applicants for academic positions complete a stan- dard foundationwide application form. Applicants are interviewed by the academic dean of the institution and by I These findings respecting the organization of Respondent are based in part on findings ,in the Decision and Direction of Election in Case 24-RC- 5453 (involving the same employer and union as here ) to which I have 151 an institute director (a position comparable to department chairman) of the institution for which employment is sought. The academic dean and the institute director involved evaluate and make their recommendation to their chancellor who makes the decision to hire subject to confirmation by Respondent's president. If approved by the president, the applicant is signed to 1-year teaching contract tenure.' The complaint attributes various unfair labor practices to two members of the CUT organization, Jorge Berrios and Pedro Hernandez-Martir, chancellor and academic dean, respectively, and one member of the Junior College organization, Justo Ortega-Norguera, director of the Rio Piedras campus. The pleadings put in issue whether they were agents and supervisors of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. With respect to Berrios the evidence shows he held the position of Chancellor during the time alleged. The chancellor is the principal officer at CUT responsible for the operation of the entire university. He is appointed by the parent Foundation and reports directly to the president of the Foundation . As the incumbent in the position,I find that Berrios was an agent of Respondent and a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(1 1) of the Act. During the events involved here Hernandez held the position of academic dean at CUT . The duties -and authority of the academic dean are not set forth in the statutes or the' faculty regulations of CUT in effect during the period in question. The evidence shows that Hernandez and the deans of administration, of students, and of learning resources occupied positions immediately below, and reported directly to, the chancellor who appointed all the deans. Respondent President Jose Mendez testified that below the academic dean in the institutional hierarchy is the category of director of an institute who is responsible directly to the academic dean. Each institute is composed of faculty members, including the director, involved in teaching closely related courses. In addition to his duties as academic dean Hernandez also taught classes two evenings a week. Faculty members of the Institute of Social Sciences at CUT, as well as two successive directors of that Institute, gave testimony indicating they consider the academic dean to be supervisor. Although Hernandez did not testify regarding his alleged supervisory status, other evidence, which is referred to hereinafter and which I rely on, in part, indicates that he asserted to other faculty members that he was privy to managerial policy decisions and possessed sufficient influence or authority to affect the continued employment of faculty members. - I also note that when an internal dispute arose in the spring of 1975 over faculty, evaluation procedures at CUT, President Mendez sent Respondent's house counsel to Caguas "to clearly define and discuss with the Chancellor and especially with the academic dean the legal aspect of evaluation and what had to be done administratively to evaluate persons and the criteria that had to be used . . . in determining the final contracting of people or faculty." accorded "persuasive relevance". See Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, v N.L R B, 365 F 2d 898, 903, 904-905 (C A D C., 1966). 152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Thereafter the house counsel made recommendations to the president based in part on information from Hernandez. Based on the foregoing I find that during the time he was academic dean at CUT Hernandez was a managerial employee who participated in formulating and effectuating the employer's policies. See N.L.R.B. v. Wentworth Institute, 515 F.2d 550, 557 (C.A. 1, 1975). One prime indicator of his supervisory status is the fact that he was not chosen academic dean by his colleagues on the faculty, but rather, in accordance with the CUT statute, by the chancellor with the consent of the Foundation's president and board of directors. See University of Miami, 213 NLRB 634 (1974). Accordingly, I find that Hernandez was a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. With respect to Ortega I find, as discussed later herein, that there is insufficient evidence on which to base a finding that he was an agent or supervisor of Respondent. In his Decision and Direction of Election in Case 24-RC-5453 in which he defines the appropriate bargaining unit and discuss the organizational structure of the Junior College, the Regional Director makes no mention of the position of campus director. Accordingly, I find that allegation has not been established. I find also, as noted later herein, that Respondent President Jose Mendez is a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The complaint alleges, and the answer admits, that the Union (Asociacion de Maestros Universitarios) is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. I so find. On August 27, 1974, as noted above, the Union peti- tioned (Case 24-RC-5453) for a Board election in a bargaining unit of all full-time teaching personnel, includ- ing instructors, associate professors, and professors, em- ployed by Respondent at its Junior College campuses in Rio Piedras and Cupey. On November 29, 1974, the Regional Director of Region 24 issued his Decision and Direction of Election in that matter pursuant to which an election subsequently was held. The Union won the election and was later certified. Thereafter the Union and Respondent entered into a collective-bargaining agreement for that bargaining unit. On November 4, 1975, the Union filed with the Board another petition (Case 24-RC-5690) seeking an election in a similar unit at CUT. In the Decision and Direction of Election in that case, issued December 29, 1975, the positions of chancellor and academic dean were not included in the definition of appropriate bargaining unit. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Instructors Involved The complaint alleges that three instructors were discrim- inated against. More particularly it is alleged that on June 2, 1975, Respondent notified Ramon Colon-Lopez, Pablo Diaz-Fernandez, and Richard Baldassari-Coca, all instruc- tors at CUT, that their employment contracts would not be renewed for the following academic year. Respondent admits that much of the allegation. It is further alleged, and Respondent denies, that the reason their contracts were not renewed was because they were involved with the Union and engaged in concerted activity. Colon was first employed by Respondent in the second semester of the academic year 1973-1974 as a part-time lecturer at the Cupey campus of the Junior College and beginning in the second part of the summer of 1974 at CUT as an instructor of social sciences and economics. Diaz was first employed at CUT in January 1974 as a part-time lecturer in social sciences. From August 1974 on he held the position of instructor. He taught political science and economics. Baldassari also started at CUT in January 1974 as a lecturer in social sciences, particularly psychology and sociology. In August 1974 he became an instructor. All three were members of the faculty of the Institute of Social Sciences under the directorship of Hector Villafane. B. The Union Activity at CUT As indicated above, the Union organized first at the Junior College . Baldassari was active in it there and in April 1974 engaged in picketing at both Cupey and Rio Piedras. Another CUT professor active in the Union at the Junior College was Alfredo Romero-Bravo. In September 1974 he started the union movement in Caguas with informal meetings with Baldassari, Diaz, and Colon. This nucleus formed the original steering committee for organizing at CUT. Later, in November, the same group constituted the governing board of the CUT chapter of the Union, chaired by Romero . In late October or early November they arranged for authorization cards to be printed . They all sought to interest colleagues in the Union . In late Novem- ber they began soliciting signatures on authorization cards from those showing an interest . Colon himself signed a card on November 18. Baldassari signed one on December 6. There is no evidence that Diaz signed one, but he, like the others, solicited signatures . Signed cards collected were handed over to Romero. As found later herein, the participation of Colon, Diaz, and Baldassari in the union movement was known to higher CUT officals. C. Events Prior to Nonrenewal of Contracts 1. Events occurring more than 6 months before filing of unfair labor practice charges 2 a. Events related to organizing at the Junior College As noted above, the Union picketed at Cupey and Rio Piedras in April 1974.3 Baldassari, then lecturer at CUT, participated in this picketing. Hernandez knew he was involved because sometime after the event Baldassari gave him a ride home from the Caguas campus and he comment- 2 The charges were filed August 26, 1975 The 10(b) period began late March or April 1975 He did not participate His testimony does not February 26, 1975 indicate any connection between that picketing and the events and 3 Romero testified that the Union picketed at Respondent 's colleges in personalities involved in this case COLEGIO UNIVERSITARIO DEL TURABO ed that Baldassare could not deny participating in the Union because he had seen him picketing. That conversation, about which Baldassari credibly testified, was denied by Hernandez. I do not credit his denial because he seemed the less credible witness. In many other respects his testimony was contradicted by other credible witnesses, some of whom were entirely disinterest- ed. The General Counsel would place this incident in March or April 1975, within the 10(b) period, and claims the dean unlawfully gave Baldassare the impression his union activity was under surveillance. But the evidence does not satisfac- torily place the time within the 10(b) period. And in any event, a supervisor's declaration of knowledge of publicity seeking activity such as picketing does not communicate an impression of surveillance. The Union realizing some success in organizing the Junior College, petitioned the Board on August 27, 1974, for an election there (Case 24-RC-5453). Shortly thereaf- ter, on September 6, Respondent's president issued instruc- tions to CUT administration on how to behave during the election period. He sent Chancellor Bemos a memorandum directing that appropriate instruction be given the deans. With this he enclosed an instructional memorandum from Respondent's legal advisor to the chancellors and deans setting forth vanous "do nots" for employer officials in labor relations matters. At the same time the president sent a memorandum to supervisors at CUT directing them to act with complete legality during the representation case and delineating for them appropriate "does" and "do nots." A few days later, on November 11, both chancellors and all the supervisors and deans (including Hernandez) from all three campuses were brought together in a meeting and orally instructed by Respondent's attorney on the same subject. The involvement of CUT in the Junior College represen- tation picture is understandable in view of Respondent's position in that proceeding that Caguas should be included in the appropriate bargaining unit. At the same time union organizing was expanding to Caguas with establishment of the AMU chapter there. b. The party at Floresta On November 27, 1974, the association of students of Business Administration at CUT sponsored a dance at the Floresta dance hall in Caguas. Students as well as various faculty members and administrators attended. Both Her- nandez and Diaz were present and conversed with each other for 15 to 20 minutes.4 They talked in general about labor unions and the philosophy involved in them, express- ing their opinions respecting the protection of the rights of unionized persons, the social equality that would entail, and the like. According to Hernandez they spoke generally about the union movement at the Junior College but made no reference to the movement at CUT. Considering that Respondent was then urging the Board to include Caguas in the unit with the other two campuses, that union 4 According to Hernandez another professor, Didinuo Barreto, was also involved in the conversation He was not called to testify. 5 It was a well known fact that he was to receive a scholarship He 153 organizing was underway at CUT including the solicitation of union authorization cards, and that the union activists, including Diaz, were all promoting the Union among their colleagues, I do not credit Hernandez' denial that no reference was made to it. Moreover, the instructions on labor relations generally encouraged discussion by the deans, even though they were specifically directed not to ask employees about their personal feelings about the Union. Diaz testified credibly, and I find that Hernandez specifically asked him what he believed about the union movement at CUT, and that he told the dean he was on the union board of directors and endeavoring to organize at Caguas. The dean commented that a vote in favor of the Union would be a vote against him. Diaz voiced his disagreement saying that the dean was then an administra- tor but in the future he might be a professor and might benefit from the Union . Instead of being placated, the dean reiterated and enlarged on his argument by saying, "I gave you a job when you needed it and now you repay me by organizing a union. As I told you, a vote in favor of a union is a vote against me." On November 29, 2 days after the Floresta party, the Decision and Direction of Election (Case 24-RC-5453) excluded CUT from the Junior College unit. c. The Christmas party In December 1974 Hernandez attended a Christmas party at the home of Jose Vasquez. Hector Villafane, then director of the Institute of Social Sciences, and Carmen Celia Ortis, a faculty member then but at the time of the hearing herein successor to Villafane as director of the Institute of Social Sciences, were also present. Conversation at the party turned to the possibility of a union at Caguas. Names of specific members of the faculty of the Institute of Social Sciences were mentioned in that connection, includ- ing Diaz, Colon, and Baldassari. Referring to them, Hernandez stated to the assembled group that he had authority to cut off heads. He predicted even the chancellor would leave. Villafane agreed Hernandez could do as he claimed but told him his own head would also be cut off. The dean replied that he was scheduled to receive a scholarship to study abroad.5 The above findings are based on the uncontradicted testimony of Ortis. Neither Villafane nor Hernandez were questioned about the occasion. This incident further demonstrates the dean's opposition to the Union. It also corroborates evidence of his subse- quent prediction (set out later herein) that the three professors in question would be cashiered because of their union involvement. d. The incident at the library Colon testified that Hernandez knew of his activity with the Union because he told Colon so on several occasions. The first such incident occurred in mid- or late-January 1975 during a chance meeting in front of the CUT library. subsequently did receive one to study in Spain Numerous scholarships for advanced study are awarded by the Foundation in accordance with an established program 154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In the words of Colon, "He told me he had knowledge that I was participating in the organization of a union at the college and that could damn me, could be prejudicial to me." Hernandez did not specifically deny making that state- ment. He testified he did not exactly recall whether they met in front of the library, but indicated such meetings were normal . Neither did he recall telling Colon he knew he was active on behalf of the Union and that that could damage him. In the circumstances I credit the more positive account of Colon. This incident is further evidence of the dean's continued antiumon attitude as well as another prediction of the professor's eventual fate. 2. Events within the 10(b) period a. The social affair at Humacao Sometime during the second semester beginning in January 1975, the Association of Students of Business Administration hosted a social affair at Humacao to honor two professors, Mima Vasquez and Alfredo Romero-Bravo. Some 40 to 50 persons were present, about 15 of them faculty members, including Colon and Hernandez. These two, who were at different tables, were conversing with each other and with Romero who was at one of their tables (it is not clear which). According to Colon, whom I credit, Hernandez, refemng to the fact that they were sitting separately, commented, "Here, the academic leaders, and there, the union leaders." Colon testified that this was the second occasion on which the dean indicated he knew of Colon's union activity. Hernandez in general corroborates the above account. Because Romeros was an honored guest, they avoided unpleasant subjects of conversation. The dean admitted stating that the leaders on each side were sitting in separate groups. He invited them all to sit with him and they did so. No contention is made that the dean's words at Humacao were an unfair labor practice. They demonstrate, however, that during his tenure as academic dean he knew of the union activity at CUT, contrary to his later testimony that he first learned of it after he went to Spain. The incident also shows that he knew Colon was a leader in the Union. b. The chance meeting at Rio Piedras The complaint alleges that in March 1975 Respondent, through Justo Ortega Noguera, the director of its Junior College Campus at Rio Piedras, unlawfully interrogated an employee about his union membership. I find Respondent did not commit an unfair labor practice in this regard. The record does not establish that the director was an agent or supervisor of Respondent within the meaning of the Act. And in any event the evidence does not prove unlawful interrogation. In mid-March 1975 Diaz went as a delegate from the Union at CUT to a meeting of the Union at the Junior College to be held on the Rio Piedras campus. Having difficulty finding the meeting, he made inquiries of a passerby. That person turned out to be Justo Ortega Noguera, director of the Rio Piedras campus. However, there is no evidence to establish that Ortega's employment in that capacity constituted him an agent or a supervisor of Respondent within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, there is no- basis for attributing his conduct to Respondent. Diaz testified that he asked Ortega where the AMU (the Union) meeting was being held. Instead of responding Ortega asked him who he was and whether he belonged to AMU. Diaz identified himself by name and as a member of the union board of directors at Caguas. Ortega asked if they were organizing Caguas and was told they were. He suggested going to the faculty lounge to learn the location of the meeting and offered to show the way. As they approached the faculty lounge Diaz asked what subject he taught and was told he did not teach because he was the director of Rio Piedras. Ortega dented that they discussed the Union or that he asked if Diaz was a member. According to him, Diaz appeared to be lost and he volunteered to help him. Diaz asked where the professors were meeting and was told there were no professors meeting, but there possibly could be a meeting of the professors' union, which would be in the faculty room. Ortega offered to take him there. As they neared the location they identified themselves to each other by name and position. Insofar as these two versions conflict, I credit Ortega. His version seems more logical, and in demeanor he impressed me as a more credible witness. I find that even if Ortega's words are attributable to Respondent, they did not involve any coercion or interfer- ence with employee rights. Accordingly, the portion of the complaint dependent on that incident should be dismissed. c. The predictions to Villafane (1) In the parking lot One evening in late March 1975 Hector Villafane, then director of the Institute of Social Sciences, had a casual conversation with Hernandez in the Caguas campus parking lot. The dean came up to Villafane and commented that the three professors here involved (Colon, Diaz, and Baldassari) were trying to bring the Union into CUT. He said it was not necessary. He predicted they would be hung up on the evaluations and discharged. Villafane responded that under the governing statutes and the employment contracts his (Villafane's) function was strictly academic; that it was not his function to persecute professors for matters unrelated to the faculty. The above finding is based on the credible testimony of Villafane. Hernandez denied the incident generally, claim- ing that at that time he did not know the Union was active at CUT, nor did he know the three professors were involved. He implied that he adhered to prior directions from the Foundation to discuss unionism only in philo- sophical terms. I do not credit his denial. In demeanor Villafane appeared the more credible witness. Moreover, other impressive evidence establishes that the dean knew throughout that AMU was organizing among the CUT 6 Leader of the Union at CUT. COLEGIO UNIVERSITARIO DEL TURABO 155 faculty and that these three professors were involved. Other evidence shows, that on other occasions he did not confine himself to philosophical observations about unionism. There is no reason to think he conducted himself differently on this occasion. It is not contended that these remarks to Villafane were an unfair labor practice. But the incident shows the dean's knowledge of the professors' unionmvolvement, his contin- ued animosity toward that movement, and another clear prediction of the fate they would ultimately suffer.? (2) In the office Villafane also testified credibly that sometime in April 1975 Hernandez came to his office and again spoke to him about the three professors. He stated they were insisting on the matter of the Union, and that independently of how Villafane evaluated then; ,theywere going to be out of the college: Villafane responded-in about the same manner as in -the 'parking lot -- that it wasnot his function to persecute formatters unrelated to academic work. The dean also denied this incident occurred. For the reasons set fforth above regarding the parking lot incident, I do not credit his-denial, This incident also is not claimed to be an unfair labor practice. But it , further shows the same knowledge, animus, and prediction as the parking lot incident . These incidents point clearly :to a -discriminatory rather than a legitimate motive in the ultimate decision not to renew the contracts of the three professors. See N.L.R.B. v. Almeida Bus Lines, Inc., 333 F.2d 725, 726 (C A. 1, 1964)., d. Rovid's Restaurant One evening in mid-April 1975- Hernandez invited Diaz to be his guest for - dinner and , conversation at Rovid's Restaurant .in Caguas:.In the restaurant -the dean indicated he had invited; him in order to talk about the Union, saying that if he, Colon, -and Baldassari continued their union involvement, "we are going to be forced to not renew your contracts. You-either leave this or you are not going to have work any more." This provoked a heated discussion between them during which they exchanged obscenities and the dean threatened to get even , by firing all three professors. At that point another patron in the restaurant, Celso Rivera, a stranger to both men, stepped between them to prevent a fight. He then took Diaz outside. Hernandez denied making the above statements or ever being in Rovid's with Diaz. I -do not credit- his denial because the testimony of Diaz is corroborated by Rivera, a wholly disinterested,witness. The General Counsel contends, and I find,'that on this occasion Respondent through Hernandez committed unfair labor practices prohibited by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening Diaz and through him Colon andBaldassari as well, with nonrenewal of their contracts if they continued their union activity. The incident also supports the infer- ence that the dean, held such a position of influence -in Respondent's hierarchy that he could make good on his threats. e. In April at the academic dean's office Near the end of-April, not long after the incident at Rovid's, Colon called at the academic dean's office to pick up his paycheck. Hernandez called him into his own office and, among other things, told him-that if he continued with his union activities he should not be surprised if his contract was not renewed. Colon replied that he- intended to continue because he believed in =the Union as a matter of principle. Hernandez denied the occasion and the words attributed to him. I do not credit -his denial. On other matters his credibility was impaired. And on this matter -his denial conflicts with the more credible testimony of Colon. The General Counsel-contends the dean's remarks were an 8(a)(1) threat. l agree and so fmd. f. In the chancellor's office In late April, having heard a rumor that his contract was not being renewed, Diaz sought out CUT Chancellor Jorge Berrios in his office and asked him directly if therewas any truth to it. Berrios told him to pay no attention to the rumor, which -he said circulated at that time every year, because evaluations had not yet-been made 'and there was no -basis for the rumor. He noted that the administration did not yet know in concrete terms what the registration would be for the next academic year or what subjects would be` taught. This fits with the testimony, of Mendez that evaluations, which usually got under way in February,,were late that year. - As his visitor was about to leave the chancellor observed, "It is my understanding that you, along with some others, are trying to organize the -AMU here at . CUT." Diaz admitted that was so, saying he was on the union board of directors. Bemos then said ' that would be taken into consideration in his evaluation. Diaz urged that his merit as a teacher also be considered. The above findings are based on the uncontradicted testimony of Diaz. The General Counsel contends the chancellor violated Section 8(a)(1). I fmd he did because his last remarks conveyed the idea that union activity could affect the professor's continued employment. One possibili- ty left open and unexplained by Berrios was that his employment would be adversely affected. The reasonable impact of the remarks were to influence the professor to renounce the Union. - - - In the meantime, controversy developed over the way Berrios was handling evaluations. Mendez met with him once or twice in April and May on that subject. On May 2 faculty representatives Carmen Ortiz and Hector Garcia sent the chancellor a memorandum protesting the proce- dures he was using. And on May 10 Romero circulated an open letter charging him with violations of the CUT statutes and regulations and accusing the academic dean of partiality. These protests did not relate directly to the three first-year professors here involved, but rather to evaluation of professors up for tenure. - The president asked the legal advisor to look into it. There followed an exchange of hot memoranda between the attorney and the chancellor. - 156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD g. In May in the academic dean's office In mid-May, Diaz had occasion to deliver examination papers to the academic dean's office. The dean invited him to sit down. He said, "Pablo, on two occasions I warned you to cease in your trying to organize the AMU here. You didn't pay any attention to me. Soon you will see the results, the consequences." Diaz responded to the effect that he had done a good job teaching, he had a clear conscience, and there was nothing more he could do even if the dean was going to fire him. The dean's closing remarks were, "You cannot say that you were not warned about the Union. You are one of the leaders. We told you to abandon this, the Union, and you are one of the leaders." Hernandez denied he made these remarks, saying he did not know then that the professor was involved with the Union. According to him Diaz came to his office following distribution on the campus of leaflets 7 personally damaging to the dean and offered to circulate an open letter disavowing the leaflets and contradicting the statements therein, provided the chancellor approved that method. Hernandez testified he expressed his appreciation and sent his visitor on to the chancellor to obtain clearance. On this conflict I credit Diaz. It is abundantly clear that the dean for a long time had known of the union activism of all three professors involved here. It is not established that the dean's testimony regarding the leaflets referred to the same occasion as that reported by Diaz. He was not cross- examined about it. No leaflets as such or testimony of other witnesses was specifically offered in support of the dean's account. Whether he was referring to Romero's open letter of May 10 is left to speculation. The General Counsel contends that Hernandez' admoni- tion to Diaz that he had been warned and would soon see the results of his failure to heed the warnings violated Section 8(a)(1). I agree and so find. h. The chancellor's memorandum to the president Respondent submitted in evidence what purports to be a memorandum of May 21 from Bemos to Mendez. Respon- dent's legal advisor, Juan Garcia Passalacqua, testified it came to his attention in the normal course of business as one of the documents submitted to Respondent's attorneys. Although it is on the chancellor's letterhead the document is unsigned. Part of it is typewritten. Part is handwritten. The typewritten portion is obviously incomplete. The handwriting completes and in part revises the typed portion. Further hand markings appear to be for work purposes. Garcia Passalacqua identified the handwriting as that of President Mendez. There is no evidence as to when it was in the president's hands. Assuming the typwntten portion originated with Berrios and went to Mendez about May 21, it constituted a list from him of the eight first-year probationary professors at CUT (including the three alleged discriminatees in this case) to all of whom Berrios proposed to send notices of nonrenewal of contract. The typed names were listed in a column on the left. On the right a column for the reasons apparently was left blank because on the document in evidence the reasons are filled in Mendez' handwriting. This suggests that in its initial form the memorandum was a draft. That inference is buttressed further by handwritten revisions in the text and by the addition at the top of the handprinted words "personal and confidential" and at the bottom a handwritten showing of a copy of one of Respondent's retained attorneys. Just when Mendez made these handwritten additions is not established. The reasons he entered for nonrenewal of the alleged discriminatees were as follows: For Colon, "Impeachment of his moral conduct"; for Diaz, "Impeach- ment of his moral conduct and continued absences"; for Baldassari, "Did not offer essential information in his application for employment." None of these "reasons" were ever communicated to the professors involved. On May 22, the day following the date of the Berrios memorandum, legal advisor Garcia Passalacqua gave Mendez his legal opinion defining appropriate procedures for evaluating first-year probationary faculty, concluding that such decisions, being the prerogative of the chancellor, must be based on criteria established by the chancellor, but excluding discrimination or antiunion prejudice. The legal advisor's opinion apparently was based on pertinent documents submitted to him by Mendez and Hernandez. i. The commencement exercises On May 30, 1975, the Junior College and CUT held joint commencement exercises in the San Juan Coliseum. At the beginning of the principal speech by the secretary of education, union supporters among the Junior College faculty staged a demonstration by displaying a banner and walking out. Some CUT professors, on the opposite side of the Coliseum, showed their support for this demonstration by standing up and applauding the walkout. Colon was the first to do so. Others, including Baldassari, followed suit. At the time most of Respondent's higher officials, including Mendez, Bemos, and Hernandez, were on the platform in front of the assemblage. In the circumstances I find responsible officials of Respondent, including Mendez, Berrios, and Hernandez, observed both demonstrators and their supporters. Colon vaguely testified that Hernandez talked to him at the commencement about the Union. But he gave no details and I deem his testimony insufficient basis for any finding respecting a conversation. Baldassari testified that outside the Coliseum, immediate- ly after the ceremonies, the academic dean took him by the arm and told him, "This has cost you your job." I so find. Hernandez denied making that statement, or even talking to him. He testified he did not see Baldassari and denied seeing him standing up inside the Coliseum to applaud the demonstration. I do not credit his denials. In some regards his testimony is inconsistent. At one point he stated he did not know if any professors walked out during the ceremony. Later he testified in some detail about the Secretary of Education being interrupted by the demonstration by the Junior College faculty, their producing a poster, applause from other Junior College faculty, and the walkout of the 7 Whether he was refemng to Romero's open letter of May 10 is not established COLEGIO UNIVERSITARIO DEL TURABO demonstrators. By his own admission he left the Coliseum at the conclusion of the ceremonies in a recessional 2 to 4 feet in front of the CUT faculty. He thus had the opportunity to make a brief remark to Baldassari even if, as he testified, he left immediately with members of his family. I find he made the remark because I find Baldassari to be a more credible witness. I recognize that his making such a statement seems pointless if he knew of the Berrios' memorandum of May 21. But I am not really convinced of the origin or significance of that document. In any case, Hernandez seemed quite capable of inconsistent conduct. The remark was calculated to interfere with the profes- sor's protected rights to engage in union activity. Accord- ingly, I find it violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. D. The Nonrenewal of Contracts By identical letters dated June 2, 1975, Berrios informed Colon, Diaz, and Baldassari that "since you are rendering services . . . on a probationary basis, our educational Institution has decided not to engage your professional services for academic year 1975-76." The reasons written by Mendez on the internal memorandum dated May 21 were not stated here. In effect no reasons were given. Contracts of all eight probationary professors were not renewed in the Institute of Social Sciences. President Mendez testified he did not make the initial decision not to renew. For reasons discussed elsewhere herein I find the nonre- newals of the contracts of the three professors involved in this case were unfair labor-practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act- because the decision not to renew their contracts was founded on the motive of unlawful discrimination. On June 19 the legal advisor informed Mendez by memorandum that the minutes of the academic board, of which Hernandez was a member, revealed there had been "serious irregularities" in 'the evaluation procedures. Men- dez made handwritten notes on this document also, including a notation to "call the Chancellor and ask him why the eight professors were not hired." From this I infer that as of June 19 Berrios, at least, had not indicated any reasons for the nonrenewal of contracts. E. Events Following Notice of Nonrenewal 1. Preliminary appeals a. To the chancellor On June 3, the day after the notices of nonrenewal, Diaz verbally appealed the decision to his institute director, Villafane, who had recommended renewal for the three professors in his institute. Villafane and Diaz, together with a faculty representative, then called on Chancellor Berrios for an explanation. Berrios refused to change the decision or to give any reason for it, saying only that Respondent's attorney had advised against comment because Respon- dent could be faced with a case in court. b. To the academic dean 157 The day following his receipt of the nonrenewal letter, which was 5 or 6-days after its date, Baldassari also inquired of Villafane as to the reasons. Villafane replied he did not know. The next day Baldassari happened to meet Hernandez in front of the dean's office building. He showed him the letter and asked him the reasons for it. The dean replied that he had warned him. Thus, ,by reference to earlier remarks he implied that union activity caused the decision not to renew his contract. This remark was another violation of Section 8(a)(1). Although not alleged, the incident was litigated in that Respondent had an opportunity to controvert it. On a second occasion in June, during the first week of the summer session, Baldassari again spoke 'with Hernandez when he picked up, or delivered, some material at his office. He again asked- the dean about his contract. This time the dean gave a different reason. He-said whatever happened there were not sufficient courses to be taught in the next year. The above findings are based on the credited testimony of Baldassari. During his testimony Hernandez was ques- tioned about both occasions. He did not recall any conversation in front of the office building. But he did not specifically deny that one occurred. Regarding the second occasion, he denied saying there were not enough courses to teach. He testified that `at that time he was not directly involved in programming for the next year. He did not, however, offer any other version of 'the conversation. For that reason, and because I generally found him to be an unreliable witness, I do not credit his denial. - 2. The appeal to the president On July 7 a committee of three made up of Romero, union leader at CUT, Hector Garcia' -faculty representative to the administrative council, and Pilar Ordonez, instructor in the language department, conferred with Mendez in an effort to reverse the decision to separate the eight profes- sors. In the course of the meeting, which went on for some time, they discussed each of the cases. Mendez told the delegation that if the professors wanted their cases re- viewed, they should prepare and send him self-evaluations. The only professors who subsequently did so were the three involved in this case. - Mendez admits-he commented "about the union process in general." Romero and Ordonez testified he was more specific, saying he would not reconsider the decisions-as to Colon, Diaz, and Baldassari because he knew they were active in union organizing at CUT. Ordonez testified he also said that if they quoted him on this he would deny it, that it was just between them. That he would make such a comment in the presence of union leader Romero seems strange. Mendez denied he refused to reconsider those three professors. He testified he made no distinction between any of the eight being reconsidered: Also,'as noted above, he had already suggest- ed self-evaluations from those desiring review. Presumably this applied to all eight professors. With respect to the three involved here that suggestion seems inconsistent with a refusal to reconsider. 158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On the other hand, refusal to reconsider the decisions as to the three union activists jibes with the earlier statement of Chancellor Bemos to Diaz that umon activity would be a consideration in his evaluation, and also with the numerous statements of Dean Hernandez, which I attribute to Respondent, indicating animus toward umon organizing at CUT. Also, although both Romero and Mendez had interests which might reflect bias, nothing suggests bias on the part of Ordonez. She and Romero corroborate each other on the fact that Mendez made the remark in question. In the circumstances I credit them. The remarks show continuing union animus. The complaint does not allege the remark of Mendez to be 8(a)(1) conduct. Although the incident was fully litigated, I find it was not a violation because the faculty members present were engaged in processing a grievance. Further, based on the uncontradicted testimony of Ordonez, I find that Mendez made no mention of any objectionable personal conduct of Colon or Diaz or of Baldassari's health or absenteeism .8 Other than the refer- ences to union activity, Mendez offered no reasons for nonrenewal of their contracts. 3. The self-evaluations and the president's final decision A day or two after the July 7 meeting Colon, Diaz, and Baldassari submitted self-evaluations to Mendez. These state in reasonably restrained terms what each considered to be favorable aspects of his service at CUT. No unfavor- able information (if any existed) was included. Mendez described his reaction to these in the following words: After reading this self-evaluation and knowing that there had been things wrong with the evaluation process of the other professors that had passed evaluation and seeing that the self-evaluations were so perfect, there was nothing that they would say was wrong with themselves which also came to my attention, as well as the Chancellor saying that everybody would pass evaluation, I decided to make the decision not to change any of the decisions of the Chancellor, not only the ones concerning these eight professors but the rest of the people that were evaluated, including Romero and Lee Calen. They were promoted and given rank. I would say that pressure was on the Chancellor and sometime at the end of July he resigned. It is apparent from Mendez' testimony that the self- evaluations were futile gestures. He gave them no weight because they contained no self-denigration. Yet there is no evidence that he indicated to the delegation on July 7 that mea culpas were expected or that such were usual practice. Realistically speaking, these self-evaluations suggested by him subsequent to the notices of dismissal could not reasonably be expected to contain material not supportive of the employee's appeal. The president's rationale, there- 8 In fact there is no evidence in the record of objectionable conduct by either Colon or Diaz. Nor did any evidence get into the record respecting Baldassari's health or absenteeism. Respondent's counsel attempted to cross- fore, seems lame and unpersuasive. He just rubber stamped the prior decisions. Documents in the case indicate that Bemos resigned about July 16 and an acting chancellor was named in his place. On August 6 Mendez notified the acting chancellor by memorandum that he had decided to sustain the decisions of Bemos. He gave no reasons. Copies were sent to the five professors still affected, including Colon, Diaz, Baldassari, and two others not involved in the present matter. F. Conclusions Regarding Discrimination The evidence offered by the General Counsel in the areas of union activity of the three professors, the umon animus of Hernandez and Mendez, the acts of independent 8(a)(1), the statement of Berrios that union activity would figure in evaluation, the failure to give the professors any reason for nonrenewal of contracts even though they all were recom- mended for renewal by their institute directors, and the shallow reconsideration given their appeals by Mendez, amply establishes a prima facie case of discrimination as to all three. As against this Respondent's evidence does not establish existence of legitimate business reasons. All parties concede that the initial decision was made by Bernos. He not only gave no reasons to the three professors for his decision; but it is not even shown that he informed other members of management of any legitimate reasons. The entries by Mendez on the memorandum dated May 21 do not evidence such reasons. They were not explained by Men- dez, who claims to have had no part in the initial decision, and there is now no way to determine from this record whether they were made before or after Bemos' decision. As to Colon and Diaz, impeachment of moral conduct is entered as a reason. There is no evidence in the record of immoral conduct by either. Continued absences is also entered as a reason for Diaz. But there is no evidence regarding his absences. As to Baldassare, the note is made that he did not offer essential information in his application for employment. There is no evidence to support such a conclusion even if such could be shown to be relevant to his dismissal, which is not apparent. In its brief Respondent asserts that Colon and Diaz are obviously playboys more interested in girls than in their academic careers. There is no evidence sufficient to support such a finding. As to Baldassari, Respondent's brief alludes to his having a serious problem of a delicate nature, precarious health, and constant absenteeism. But there is no evidence to support any such findings. Finally, statistics showing that for the academic year in question a normal or usual percentage of contracts were not renewed does not satisfactorily combat the evidence of discrimination in these three specific cases. In sum, I find a preponderance of the evidence warrants the inference that failure to renew the contracts of Colon, Diaz, and Baldassari was motivated by a desire of manage- ment to discourage union activity among the faculty. These examine him on these topics , but the testimony was excluded as being beyond the scope of direct examination. COLEGIO UNIVERSITARIO DEL TURABO 159 discriminations were unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) 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 the operations de- scribed 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. They are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Jose Mendez, Jorge Bemos, and Pedro Hernandez- Martir are agents of Respondent and supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. 4. Respondent threatened, coerced, and restrained employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act thereby committing unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by: (a) Threatening faculty members that their contracts would not be renewed if they continued their union activity. (b) Informing a faculty member that his union activity would be a factor considered in evaluating him for future employment. (c) Warning faculty members, directly or indirectly, that because they had ignored earlier warnings to abandon union activity, their employment contracts would not be renewed. 5. Respondent, in not renewing the academic contracts of employment of Colon, Diaz, and Baldassari beyond the academic year 1974-75, committed unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discriminating with respect to their hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization. 6. The unfair labor practices found above affect com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices, I recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. I recommend that Respondent be ordered to offer Colon, Diaz, and Baldassare immediate and full reinstatment to their former positions or, if these positions are not available, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other benefits and 9 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 privileges, and that they be made whole for loss of earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination against them by paying each a sum of money equal to that which he would have earned if employed from the beginning of the 1975-76 academic year to the date Respondent offers him reinstate- ment, less net earnings during such period, to be computed in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest thereon at 6 percent calculated according to the formula set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). I further recommend that Respondent be required to preserve and make available to Board agents, upon request, all pertinent records and data necessary in analyzing and deternumng whatever backpay may be due. I further recommend that Respondent post appropriate notices at the CUT campus. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDERS The Respondent, Fundacion Educatioa Ana G. Mendez, Inc. d/b/a Colegio Universitano del Turado and as Puerto Rico Junior College, Gurabo, Puerto Rico, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discriminating against faculty members because they engage in union or other protected activity. (b) Threatening faculty members that their academic employment contracts will not be renewed if they engage in union activity. (c) Considering union activity of faculty members in evaluating them for future employment or informing them that their union activity will be considered in such evalua- tions. (d) Informing faculty members, directly or indirectly, that their academic employment contracts were not re- newed because they ignored warnings to abandon union activity. (e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing faculty members in the exercise of the right to self- organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Asociacion de Maestros Umversitarios, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condi- tion of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. 2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Ramon Colon-Lopez, Pablo Diaz-Fernandez, and Richard Baldassari-Coca immediate and full reinstate- ment to their former jobs or, if such jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent ones, without prejudice to their 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 160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of earnings in the manner set forth in the section herein entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and make available to the Board or its agents, upon request, all records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms hereof. (c) Post at its campus in Caguas, Puerto Rico, copies in Spanish and English of the attached notice marked "Ap- pendix "10 Copies of said notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 24, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places at its Caguas campus, including all places where notices to faculty and other employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent in insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 24, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that allegations in the complaint of violation of the Act not specifically found herein be dismissed. 10 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 " APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing in which all sides had a chance to give evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post this notice. The Act gives all employees, including faculty, these rights. To engage in self-organization To form, join, or help unions To act together for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection To bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing To refrain from any or all of these things. WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with, restrains, or coerces faculty members or other employ- ees with respect to these rights. WE WILL NOT refuse to renew academic employment contracts of faculty members because they engage in union or concerted activity. WE WILL NOT threaten faculty members that their contracts will not be renewed if they continue their union activity. WE WILL NOT inform faculty members that union activity will be considered in evaluating them for future employment nor will we consider such in evaluation. WE WILL NOT warn faculty members that their employment contracts were not renewed because they ignored past warnings to abandon union activity. WE WILL NOT in any other manner threaten , coerce, or restrain, or discriminate against, faculty members in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act or because they engage in union or concerted activity protected under the Act. WE WILL give Ramon Colon-Lopez, Pablo Diaz- Fernandez, and Richard Baldassan-Coca their old positions, with back salary. FUNDACION EDUCATIVA ANA G. MENDEZ, INC. D/B/A COLEGIO UNIVERSITARIO DEL TURABO AND AS PUERTO RICO JUNIOR COLLEGE