Congreso De Uniones Industriales De Puerto Rico (Rice Growers Association Of California (P.R.) Inc.)

626 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Congreso de Uniones Industriales de Puerto Rico (Rice Growers Association of California (P.R.) Inc.) and Isabelo Rosario. Case 24-CB-1270 29 April 1986 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS DENNIS, BABSON, AND STEPHENS On 26 September 1985 Administrative Law Judge Thomas R. Wilks issued the attached deci- sion . The Respondent filed exceptions and a sup- porting brief, and the General Counsel filed an an- swering brief.' The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings , findings,2 and i The General Counsel requests that we disregard certain of the Re- spondent's exceptions because, inter alia, they fail to set forth specifically the questions of procedure, fact, law, or policy to which exceptions are taken and fail to set forth with specificity the excepted-to portions of the judge's decision Sec 102 46(b) of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations states that any exception which does not comply with the requirements of that section "may be disregarded " We find that the Respondent's exceptions are procedurally sufficient and that its brief adequately designates the portions of the decision the Respondent claims are erroneous See Churchill 's Restaurant, 276 NLRB 775 fn 1 (1985), Rice Growers Assn of California, 224 NLRB 663 fn 1 (1976) 2 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find- ings The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings The judge inadvertently labeled the "Unfair Labor Practices" section of his decision sec II instead of sec III In sec III, pars 2 and 3, of his decision, the judge misspelled the names of two witnesses The correct names are Arturo Figueroa Diaz and Pedro Rodriguez Rosario In sec III, par 9, of his decision, the judge misspelled Marciano Cas- tro's name Castro is the Employer's production supervisor, not its per- sonnel supervisor as the judge found In sec III, par 10, of his decision, the judge found that Castro had been advised that additional security guards would commence duty at the Employer's plant on Saturday, 8 September 1984 The record shows that Castro did not know that there would be additional guards on duty on 8 September In sec III , par 13, of his decision, the judge found that Rodriguez per- mitted Gilberto Oquendo to remain on the picket line after Oquendo threw a bottle at the Charging Party Rodriguez testified that he permit- ted Oquendo to remain on the picket line after Oquendo' s first argument with Rosario on the morning of 8 September, but he was not asked if he allowed Oquendo to remain after Oquendo threw the bottle Rodriguez admitted that he allowed Oquendo to return when the picketing resumed on 10 September 1984 In sec III, par 13, of his decision, the judge inadvertently referred to Rosario rather than Oquendo as having thrown a bottle In sec III, par 17, of his decision, the judge inadvertently referred to the "9 September incident at the plant gate " The correct date is 8 Sep- tember 1984 The foregoing inadvertent errors do not affect the results of our deci- sion conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order as modified.3 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Re- spondent, Congreso de Uniones Industriales de Puerto Rico, its officers, agents, and representa- tives, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified. 1. Substitute the following for section 1. "1. Cease and desist from "(a) Interfering with employees of Rice Growers Association of California (P.R.) Inc. in the exercise of their right under Section 7 of the Act to refrain from strike or picketing activities by threatening to attack or by physically attacking employees who choose to work during such activities. "(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees of Rice Growers Association of California (P.R.) Inc. in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act." 2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a). "(a) Post at its office and at meeting halls used by or frequented by its members and employees it represents at the Employer's plant in Guaynabo, Puerto Rico, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."2 Copies of the notice, reproduced in English and Spanish on forms provided by the Re- gional Director for Region 24, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places including all places where notices to members and employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material." 3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the administrative law judge. 3 We shall modify the judge's recommended Order and issue a new notice to correct certain inadvertent errors APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice. 279 NLRB No. 88 CONGRESO UNIONES INDUSTRIALES (RICE GROWERS) 627 Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights. To organize To form, join, or assist any union To bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choice To act together for other mutual aid or pro- tection To choose not to engage in any of these protected concerted activities. WE WILL NOT, by threatened or actual physical attack, interfere with your right to refrain from striking or picketing if you choose to work while we are engaged in a strike. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner re- strain or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act. CONGRESO DE UNIONES INDUS- TRIALES DE PUERTO Rico Angel A. Valencia-Aponte, for the General Counsel. Nicolas Delgado Figueroa, of Santurce, Puerto Rico, for the Respondent. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE THOMAS R. WiLKS, Administrative Law Judge. The trial in this case was held before me in Hato Rey, Puerto Rico, on 20 June 1985, pursuant to an unfair labor prac- tice charge filed by Isabelo Rosario, an individual, on 4 February 1985, against Congreso de Uniones Industriales de Puerto Rico (Respondent), and a complaint issued by the Regional Director for Region 24 on 13 March 1985. At the trial all parties were given full opportunity to in- troduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to argue orally. Written briefs were sub- mitted on 9 August 1985. On the entire record and on my observation of the de- meanor of the witnesses and on consideration of the briefs, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION Rice Growers Association of California (P R.) Inc. (the Employer) is, and has been at all times material, a corporation duly organized under, and existing by virtue of, the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. At all times material, the Employer has maintained an office and place of business at Calle Central esq San Pablo, Bo Sabana, in the city of Guaynabo, and Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (the plant), where it is, and has been at all times material, engaged in the manufacture, sale, and dis- tribution of rice and related products. During the past year, which period is representative of its annual oper- ations generally, the Employer, in the course and con- duct of its business, purchased and caused to be trans- ported and delivered to its plant rice and other goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, of which goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 were transported and delivered to its plant in interstate com- merce directly from points and places located outside the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. It is admitted, and I find, that the Employer is, and has been at all times material, an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. iI. LABOR ORGANIZATION It is admitted , and I find, that the Respondent is, and has been at all times material , a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A very simple, factually concise issue is the subject of this litigation. It is whether during the course of a strike conducted by the Respondent, it was responsible for a threat to attack and a physical attack on employee Isa- belo Rosario Figueroa by a picket, Gilberto Oquendo, for the purpose of impeding that employee's attempt to enter the Employer's strike bound plant on 8 September 1984. The Employer and the Respondent had maintained a collective-bargaining relationship for about 19 years and were parties to a labor contract which expired in late 1984. After failure of negotiations the Union decided on 6 or 7 September 1984 to engage in a strike. Union Presi- dent Arturo Figueroa Diaz and the General Counsel's chief witness, Isabelo Rosario Figueroa (Rosario), testi- fied that the commencement date of the strike was to be Monday, 10 September. Rosario, at that time a union del- egate and steward, testified that the strike was to start after the delivery to the plant, by barge, of a rice ship- ment. According to his testimony, Rosario and coworker and union member Gilberto Oquendo had argued in the plant several weeks before the strike. In that argument Oquendo accused Rosario of not supporting the "move- ment" by not instituting a strike. Rosario responded that the laborers constitute the determining factor in the union membership, and that when they decide to strike, there will be a strike. He told Oquendo to take his com- plaint to the union president, and he offered to defend himself to the president. Rosario was not contradicted, as Oquendo did not testify. Pedro Rodriguez Rosario (Rodriguez) testified without contradiction that during the strike he was the union rep- resentative responsible for the control and direction of picketing at the Employer's plant. President Figueroa testified that he had instructed Rodriguez to meet with the employees on 8 September at the plant gate to ex- plain to them the "rules of the game," i e., the manner of picketing. Rodriguez testified that he met with about 35 employees at the plant gate at 5:30 a.m., Saturday, 8 Sep- tember. He did not see either Rosario or Oquendo among the group. He testified that he also met with police officers at the same time. Rodriguez and the police agreed to certain conditions of picketing. Rodri- guez testified that he immediately explained these rules to the employees, i.e., rules "about drinking, about beer, 628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD about bottles, about [persons seeking ingress and egress]." He testified that as many as 20 police officers were "out there all over the place." Rodriguez also explained the manner whereby two pickets would be allowed to solicit workers' cooperation with the strike. The complaint alleges, and Respondent admits, that "since on or about September 8, 1984, and continuing thereafter until December 11, 1984, Respondent com- menced, sanctioned and maintained a strike and picketing activities against the Employer at the Employer's plant." Rodriguez testified that the strike and picketing com- menced on that Saturday From his entire testimony it appears that picketing was ongoing by 6-6:20 a.m. It is Rosario's uncontradicted testimony that Saturday was a workday and that he was scheduled to work that day. Rosario testified further to the following events. About 6:30 a.m. on 8 September he drove to the plant gate in his van and was surprised to observe several per- sons gathered at the gate including Rodriguez , Oquendo, and employees Jesus Rivera and Alfredo Casanova. Ro- sario saw no police officers and no persons "walking in front of the gate." Rosario testified that he had "no idea" why Oquendo, Rodriguez, and the other two employees were present and he asked , "what was going on?" Oquendo greeted Rosario with a derogatory epithet and asked where he was going. Rosario responded that he was going to work. Rosario had halted his van and got out and walked toward the watchman at the closed gate. He asked the watchman to verify whether he was named in a list of scheduled workers. The watchman pe- rused a list but remained silent . Rosario asked, "Hey, am I or am I not on the list?" Oquendo then engaged in some undisclosed movement which led Rosario to be- lieve that he wanted to attack him. Jesus Rivera inserted himself between them. Rosario said , "Jesus, let him alone, I'm not going to fight here with nobody, I came here to defend your jobs, I don't want to have any prob- lems." Rosario again unsuccessfully attempted to get a response from the watchman and in frustration departed. Rodriguez had been about 15-20 feet away at the outset of this encounter. As Rosario drove away, he shortly encountered Per- sonnel Chief Calderon and Production Supervisor Ma- ciano Castro who were approaching in separate vehicles although both stopped to meet Rosario. Rosario talked with Calderon alone and revealed his problem of the nonresponsive watchman. Calderon verified to Rosario that he was indeed listed to work. All three thereafter approached the plant gate and entered individually. Cal- deron entered first and proceeded to a second gate. Castro testified that he entered after Calderon He tes- tified that he observed a group of persons of whom an undisclosed number were employees . He testified that it appeared to him that pickets were being organized, al- though he observed no police officers, nor placards. He did observe that extra guards hired by the Employer were present to augment the sole watchman normally present . He had been advised by undisclosed persons that the guards were to commence duty that Saturday. Castro, a member of the Employer's bargaining team, could not recall whether negotiations had been sched- uled for that date, or whether they had "broken" off. Based on his awareness of the state of negotiations which were close to deadlock, he suspected that the strike had started when he saw the group at the gate. His vehicle windows were closed and he did not hear the voices dis- tinctly When Calderon entered through the open gate, no employee entered to go to work. When he stopped at the gate, Castro saw Oquendo pick up and hold a bottle in one hand , and hold another indeterminate object in the other hand. He drove in and parked. Rosario testified that after Calderon and Castro had left and as he was about to enter with his van, Oquendo, near the passenger side, called out to him with a repeat- ed epithet and asked, "[A]re you really going in there?" At that point, according to Rosario, Rodriguez had moved to the lamppost at the corner of the "parking place," and from a distance of about 7-8 feet he ob- served them. It is not clear on which side of the van he stood. However, Supervisor Castro testified that Oquendo had been on the driver's side of the gate en- trance driveway with 10 other persons, and that he and Jesus Rivera walked across the drive in front of his vehi- cle to position themselves in the driveway entrance on the passenger side of incoming vehicles. Rosario re- sponded to Oquendo to "forget about it." Rosario pre- pared to move through the gate and, according to him, Oquendo threw the bottle he had been holding through the open front passenger window . Rosario was hit on the right side of his face. He saw Oquendo holding a rock. He asked why Oquendo had hit him. Oquendo repeated the epithet and made a motion to throw the rock. Ro- sario then drew out of his glove compartment a gun and pointed it at Oquendo. He told Oquendo that he would fire if he threw his rock. Oquendo froze in motion, and Rosario drove past. As he drove in, Oquendo threw the rock which hit the van roof Supervisor Castro testified that immediately thereafter when he parked, Rosario came to him with bottle in hand and stated, "[L]ook at the bottle Oquendo threw at me." Rosario displayed a bruise on the right side of his face which was beginning to swell. Of all the other persons who witnessed this incident, only Picket Captain Rodriguez testified, as an adverse witness called by the General Counsel. He admitted that he had observed Rosario's attempt to enter the plant about 6.30 a.m. He admitted that he observed what ap- peared to be an argument between Rosario and Oquendo. However, he testified that he then approached them and stated to Oquendo, "[W]e cannot interfere if they wanted to go in." He testified that he attempted un- successfully to convince the guard to open the gate for Rosario, and told Rosario, "I'm sorry." As to Rosario's second appearance at the gate Rodriguez admitted that from 20 feet away he observed Oquendo throw a bottle at Rosario during what appeared to be an argument. Ro- driguez permitted Oquendo to remain on the picket line, and did not question him about the incident. On cross- examination he testified: [T]hey stopped, then the argument arose and [Ro- sario] took the gun out , the other guy threw- CONGRESO UNIONES INDUSTRIALES (RICE GROWERS) threw the bottle and-you know, and that was it and they just opened the gate. Rodriguez testified that Oquendo had been drinking water from the bottle. The sequence of events as testified to by Rodriguez suggests that Rosario pulled out and pointed his gun before Oquendo threw the bottle. But he also testified that after the bottle was thrown: So, Oquendo-the other guy just stood with his hands in there, he-he didn't dare use the gun, he just took it up maybe, I don't know, for preventa- tive measures or . . . to just show off . . . but he didn't use the gun, he just-then what he did, when they opened the gate, he just [proceeded into the plant] According to Rodriguez, the police were at the extreme opposite end of the picketing. This explains why Rosario and Castro did not observe any other police officers. Ro- driguez' testimony regarding the sequence of bottle throwing and gun pointing is not totally clear in his testi- mony In direct examination he acquiesced to a question which suggested that the bottle throwing occurred first. Not only was Rosario's testimony clearer and more de- tailed, his testimony was more fluent, responsive, sponta- neous, and certain. Whereas Rodriguez' testimony was marked by hesitations and rendered in an uncertain de- meanor I credit Rosario concerning the confrontation with Oquendo Rodriguez testified that after the bottle incident, Oquendo went to the area of picketing where the police officers were stationed to make a formal complaint against Rosario. The next day, the matter was placed before a court of law, presumably a criminal court, in consequence of mutual charges, and the matter was re- solved on mutual agreement to withdraw the respective charges. By letter dated 10 September 1984, addressed to the general manager of the Employer, Union President Fi- gueroa announced the removal of Rosario as union dele- gate and steward and therefore without authorization to bargain on behalf of the Respondent. The strike contin- ued until December 1984 and Oquendo continued to picket. Oquendo was elected to replace Rosario as dele- gate and steward after the strike. President Figueroa testified that at a union meeting held on 10 September he was informed of the incident of 8 September and he was told that Oquendo approached Rosano and reproached him for his failure as a union delegate for not helping the employees and that Rosario had drawn a gun prior to the bottle throwing. Figueroa testified I decided to fire the General Delegate of the union because I understood that the attitude that he had assumed, by him as well as Oquendo, were not the best, and to bring out a gun at a laborer's meeting was very dangerous to have a person representing the union when a strike started, when a strike would start that would be very dangerous. So I decided to send him a letter [removing] him as a delegate 629 Respondent did not seek to reconcile the inconsistency in the testimony of President Figueroa and Picket Cap- tain Rodriguez about the start of picketing. If he did re- ceive a report of the 9 September incident at the plant gate, he most probably was aware that it did not occur at a laborer's meeting but rather that it occurred more than an hour after the meeting according to the testimo- ny of Rodriguez who was not contradicted by any other Respondent witness to the event. In view of Rosario's testimony about the scheduling of the strike, I credit Fi- gueroa that indeed the original intention was to start the strike on Monday. However, in view of the uncontra- dicted testimony of Rodriguez who was authorized to organize, commence, and start the strike and picketing, I find that it did in fact commence about 6 a m. on 8 Sep- tember 1984 just prior to Rosario's arrival. Nothing in Rosario's or Castro's testimony contradicts his testimony on this point. Oquendo and Rivera were clearly the two pickets selected to solicit the cooperation of approaching employees in the manner agreed between Rodriguez and the police officers. Those officers were not seen by Ro- sario and Castro because they were not at the gate at that particular moment . Also there is some reference in Rodriguez' testimony to their placement behind some sort of "screen." Much of the testimony of Castro and Rosario about their observations corroborates Rodriguez about the existence of a strike and picketing under Re- spondent agent's authority, control, and direction at the time of the bottle throwing. Surely President Figueroa must have been informed by the report he received on 10 September that in fact the strike had started on 8 September. In his testimony quoted above he unwittingly admitted that the strike had started but he quickly corrected himself by rephrasing "when a strike started" to "when a strike would start." At the very least he must have been informed that the incident occurred after the employee meeting at the gate. A natural curiosity about why Oquendo, Rivera, and others lingered at that gate would have most likely caused him to discover that the strike and picketing had commenced In view of my factual findings, he must also have been advised that Rosario drew his gun after the bottle was thrown. Yet, Oquendo was not reprimanded, nor was his conduct disavowed. Rather, it was Rosario who was removed as union delegate and steward, and Oquendo's poststrike election was accepted by Figueroa. Figueroa admitted that it was reported to him that Oquendo's conduct occurred in the context of Oquendo's reproach to Rosario for his lack of support for the em- ployees, which in this context meant his refusal to sup- port the strike and picketing. Oquendo was permitted to continue picketing for the remainder of the 3-month strike. During that strike, ac- cording to Picket Captain Rodriguez, numerous "inci- dents" arose which necessitated his negotiations with the Employer's guards, e.g., rock throwing and accusation of nail scattering . He testified that charges of misconduct were made by both sides, including alleged brandishing of firearms. Rodriguez admitted, without further clarifi- cation, that Oquendo was subsequently "involved in more than one incident of violence" and "accused" of 630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD other "offenses." No other evidence of misconduct was adduced. With respect to the lawfulness of Rosario's carrying a gun on 8 September 1984. Respondent cites the Weapons Law of Puerto Rico, Law Number 17 of January 19, 1951, 25 LPRA, section 1431, which purports to restrict the transportation of firearms by "overseers, foremen, su- pervisors or any other person in charge or supervising work performed by laborers or agricultural farms, indus- trial or commercial establishments, or any other working place" during the time of performance of supervisory duties except under certain conditions. Respondent con- tends that Rosario improperly carried the gun to work. However, there is no evidence that Rosario's duties on 8 September were such as to fall within the definition of the statute. Moreover, the lawfulness of the gun posses- sion is not relevant to the issues in this case, particularly as the facts disclose that Rosario resorted to his gun only after Oquendo hit him with a bottle and was about to throw a rock. For the purposes of this case, it is suffi- cient to find that Rosario did not provoke Oquendo. IV. ANALYSIS I find that about 6 a.m. on 8 September 1984 Respond- ent commenced, sanctioned, and maintained a strike and picketing activities against the Employer at the Employ- er's plant. Further, I find that pursuant to a manner of picketing agreed to between police officers and Respond- ent's agent and picket line captain, certain employees were selected to be stationed at the gates for purposes of picketing and soliciting strike cooperation from other employees seeking ingress. One of those pickets was Oquendo. It is settled law that a union is responsible for the known but unrestrained actions of its designated pickets. Longshoremen ILWU (Sunset Line), 79 NLRB 1487 (1948); Teamsters Local 327 (Coca-Cola Bottling), 184 NLRB 84 (1970). Even where a union instructs strikers not to engage in acts of violence, it will be held culpable if it fails to fully and effectively repudiate such known misconduct. Lithographers Local 235 (Henry Wurst), 187 NLRB 490 (1970). The picket captain in charge had observed an "argu- ment" during the first encounter A second picket insert- ed himself between Rosario and Oquendo. The picket captain observed enough to prompt him to caution Oquendo, but he did not take any further steps to re- strain Oquendo despite the fact that in the second con- frontation Oquendo approached oncoming vehicles with both a rock and a bottle in hand. Finally, Respondent, by its dismissal of Rosario, its acquiescence in maintaining Oquendo as a picket, and its not in any manner repudiat- ing his conduct, silently adopted and approved of that violence. Its final approbation of such conduct came after the strike with its acceptance of Oquendo as Rosar- io's replacement as a union delegate. Respondent must therefore be held accountable for the violent conduct of picket Oquendo. Although Rosario may not initially have been fully aware that the strike had officially started, the objective reality is that an employee was violently prevented from working by a picket in full view of fellow workers, i.e., other pickets and an employee who sat nearby in a vehi- cle. Whatever Rosario's own state of mind when first ap- proaching the gate, Respondent's conduct tended to impact observing employees and thus tended to coercive- ly encourage their continued strike support. In any event, it is clear that from Rosario's own point of view he had deliberately chosen not to join Oquendo in the concerted activity of refusing to perform services for the Employer on 8 September. Thus, regardless of his unawareness that the strike had officially started, he chose to engage in conduct protected by the act, i.e., re- fraining from concerted activities. That choice was ob- jectively impeded by violent coercion. Finally, as the General Counsel points out, the test of unlawful coercion is not subjective impact, but rather objective tendency. Longshoremen ILA Local 333 (ITO Corp.), 267 NLRB 1320, 1321 (1983); Steelworkers Local 1397 (U.S. Steel), 240 NLRB 848, 849 (1979). Accordingly, I find that by the conduct of its picket under its direction and control on 8 September 1984 at the Employer's plant gate Respondent threatened to physically attack and did attack an employee in order to impede access to his work. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW By conduct found above, Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act and violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. THE REMEDY In view of the seriousness of the picket line miscon- duct involved and Respondent's failure to publicly repu- diate such conduct, I recommend a remedial order whereby Respondent be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action to inform employees and members of their rights under the Act to refrain from strike or picketing activities. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed' ORDER The Respondent, Congreso de Uniones Industriales de Puerto Rico, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Interfering with Rice Growers Association of Cali- fornia (P.R.) Inc. employees' rights under the Act to re- frain from strike or picketing activities by threatened or actual physical attack (b) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc- ing the employees of Rice Growers Association of Cali- fornia (P.R.) Inc in the exercise of their rights protected by Section 7 of the Act. ' If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur- poses CONGRESO UNIONES INDUSTRIALES (RICE GROWERS) 631 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Post at its office and meeting halls used by or fre- quented by its members and employers it represents at the Employer's plant in Guaynabo, Puerto Rico, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."2 Copies of the notice, reproduced in English and Spanish on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 24, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representa- 2 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation- al 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 " Live, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to members and employees are customarily posted . Reason- able steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Sign and mail to the Regional Director copies of the aforementioned notice for posting at the premises of the Employer, Rice Growers Association of California (P.R.) Inc., if the Employer is willing. (c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply.