Bull Insular Line, Inc. et al.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 18, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 900 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

900 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent described in section III, above , occurring in connection
with the Respondent 's operations described in section I, above , have a close , intimate, and
substantial relation 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.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices , I shall recom-
mend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action in order to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Respondent having discriminatorily discharged Roy Hix , Frank Harris , Charley Mays and
Oakley Mays on September 17, 1951 , and Charley Mays again on November 16, 1951, it is
recommended that Respondent offer to each of them immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions4 without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered by them as a result
of the discrimination by payment to them of a sum of money equal to the amount they would
have earned from the date of their discharge to December 8, 1952 , the date of the filing of
the answer herein in the case ofHarris and the two Mays ,5 to the date he is offered reinstate-
ment in the case of Roy Hix, less their net earnings6 to be computed on a quarterly basis
in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company , 90 NLRB 289 , 291-294.
Earnings in one particular quarter shall have no effect upon the back pay liability for any
other such period . It will also be recommended that the Respondent make available to the
Board, upon request, payroll and other records to facilitate the checking of the amount of
back pay due. T
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make
the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.
4 The Chase National Bank of the City of New York , San Juan , Puerto Rico , Branch, 65
NLRB 827.
5Respondent 's offer of employment to these three in its answer tolls the running of back
pay to them as of the date of its filing . The offer of employment specifically excluded Roy Hix.
6Crossett Lumber Company , 8 NLRB 440 , 497-8. In the case of Charley Mays, his net
earnings to be deducted will include what he earned working for Respondent for 2 days in
November 1951.
7F. W. Woolworth Company, supra.
BULL INSULAR LINE, INC. ET AL. and INTERNATIONAL
LONGSHOREMEN ' S ASSOCIATION DISTRICT COUNCIL OF
THE PORTS OF PUERTO RICO ( ILA), Petitioner
PUERTO RICO MARINE CORP. ET AL. and UNION DE TRA-
BAJADORES DE ABORDO Y Muelles DE PONCE INDE-
PENDIENTE, Petitioner
108 NLRB No. 126.
BULL INSULAR LINE, INC. ET AL. 901
EASTERN SUGAR ASSOCIATES (A TRUST), Petitioner and
LOCAL UNION NO. 1745, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE-
MEN'S ASSOCIATION (ILA)
PUERTO RICO DRY DOCK AND MARINE TERMINAL, INC.
and CONFEDERACION GENERAL DE TRABAJADORES DE
PUERTO RICO (AUTENTICA), Petitioner
BULL INSULAR LINE, INC., ET AL. and UNION DE EM-
PLEADOS DE MUELLES DE PUERTO RICO, Petitioner
BULL INSULAR LINE, INC., Petitioner and INTERNATIONAL
LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION DISTRICT COUNCIL OF
PORTS OF P. R.
MENDEZ & CIA., INC. and UNION DE EMPLEADOS DE
MUELLES DE PUERTO RICO, Petitioner
PUERTO RICO STEAMSHIP ASSOCIATION ET ALS. and
UNION DE TRABAJADORES DE MUELLES Y RAMAS
ANEXAS DE PUERTO RICO (UTM), AFL, Petitioner
PUERTO RICO STEAMSHIP ASSOCIATION, Petitioner and
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION
PUERTO RICO STEAMSHIP ASSOCIATION, Petitioner and
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION. Cases
Nos. 24 -RC-197, 24-RC- 248, 24 -RM-8, 24-RC-225, 24-RC-
359, 24-RM-12, 24-RC-246, 24-RC-663, 24- RM-21 and
24-RM-22, May 18, 1954
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION , DIRECTION, AND
CERTIFICATIONS
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Elections issued by
the Board on January 5, 1954,1 elections by secret ballots were
conducted on January 26, 1954 , under the supervision of the
Regional Director for the Twenty -fourth Region among the em-
ployees in the unit and voting groups found appropriate by the
Board. Thereafter, a tally of ballots was furnished to the
parties . On January 29, the International Longshoremen's As-
sociation , District Council of the Ports of Puerto Rico (ILA,
Ind.), hereinafter referred to as the ILA, filed timely objections
to the election.
Oh March 31 , 1954 , the Regional Director issued and served
on the parties his report on challenges and objections in which
he made recommendations with respect to the challenged ballots
and the objections . As to the objections , the Regional Director
recommended that they be dismissed in toto that challenges to
1107 NLRB 674.
902 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
certain ballots in group 4 be upheld and that the ILA be certified
as bargaining representative for that group , that certain
challenges to ballots in group 3 be upheld and others in that
group overruled , and recommended that certain labor organiza-
tions be certified for other voting groups as hereinafter in-
dicated. Thereafter , the ILA filed timely exceptions to the
Regional Director ' s report.
The Conduct Affecting the Results of the Election
The ILA sets forth 11 general objections : to the conduct of
the election as a whole , without relating such objections to the
specific unit or voting groups ordered by the Board . As each
voting group requires individual consideration and certification,
we shall follow the findings of the Regional Director ' s report
and consider the objections as they relate to each group.
Voting Group 1--Case No. 24 -RC-197
This group involved some 7,066 eligible employees working
as stevedores and in related classifications , who were employed
by members of the Association in all ports of the Island where
the members do business . Elections were conducted at polls in
8 towns,s and 4,668 votes were cast.
The ILA alleges that through some 147 supervisory employ-
ees, the Employers actively participated in the election cam-
paign and thereby favored the rival union . The Regional Di-
rector states that in support of this objection , the ILA offered
evidence of only 3 instances of foremen participation , based on
statements of 2 employees . One employee stated that Foreman
Navarro ( Gonzalez ) of Pope & Talbot asked him why he pre-
ferred the ILA to Union de Trabajadores de Muelles y Ramas
Anexas de Puerto Rico (hereinafter referred to as UTM). The
second employee stated that Foreman Hernandez , of Bull In-
sular Line, campaigned for the UTM by talking over a loud-
speaker in the town of Catano saying that " We're going to get
rid of Moreno ' s strike breakers ," and similar language to
that effect , urging that employees vote for the UTM. He also
2 Objections Nos. 1, 2, and 3 deal with alleged interference by supervisory employees. No. 4
with discrimination against the ILA and in favor of the rival union; Nos. 5 and 11 with alleged
padding of payrolls and eligibility lists; No. 6 with illegal discharge for ILA affiliation; Nos. 7,
8, and 9 with the right of challenge and of voting . Of these objections, there were no exceptions
to the Regional Director's finding and recommendation that objections Nos. 5, 6, and 11 be
overruled. Although the ILA subsequently filed with the Board, in support of objection No. 5,
a long list of employees' names alleged to have been improperly included in the eligibility
list, such offer of proof at this time constitutes in effect a post-election challenge which the
Board customarily refuses to consider . Moreover , in view of thg fact that no exceptions have
been filed to the Regional Director ' s recommendation that the Board overrule this objection,
we shall not consider the merits thereof, nor for the same reason shall we consider the
merits of objections Nos. 6 and 11, to the Regional Director's dismissal of which no exceptions
have been filed.
$ San Juan, Punta Santiago , Puerto Real, Arroyo, Jobos, Mayaguez , Guanica, and Guayanilla.
BULL INSULAR LINE, INC. ET AL. 903
stated that Carlos Alberto , head foreman of Pope & Talbot,
promised him work if he would vote for the UTM.4
The Regional Director found , after an investigation, that
Hernandez denied the allegation . The head foreman of Pope &
Talbot, who stated he was not known as Carlos Alberto and
whose name is Alberto Melendez Valentin , stated that he did not
know the employee ( in question ) byname andhadnever solicited
for the UTM . The Regional Director found that the utterances
of Navarro (Gonzalez ) and of Hernandez , even if made, were
isolated in nature , and in any event protected under Section 8
(c) of the Act . As to Valentin ' s remark , he found that the em-
ployee concerned regularly worked for another employer and
had never applied for work where Valentin was alleged to be
supervisors
Although we cannot say that either Hernandez ' or Navarro's
remarks, if made, were privileged under Section 8 (c) we find
that in view of the number of employees involved and the extent
of the voting in eight towns , such remarks should not be made
the basis for setting aside the election . $ We therefore adopt the
Regional Director ' s recommendation and find that this objection
does not raise substantial and material issues in respect to the
election.
Objection No. 2 alleges that over 100 supervisors were
allowed to remain in the election area and freely express their
favoritism for the rival union , ? In support of this objection, the
ILA states that it had requested and was denied the ruling of
the Regional Office that alleged supervisors should be required
to vote under challenge in a separate area from nonsupervisory
employees . The Regional Director finds, contrary to this allega-
tion , that no such request had been made; however , even if
made, as the Board's customary election procedures provide
for no separate voting places and no compelling reason had
been offered for changing this procedure , the ILAwas not prej-
udiced thereby. The exceptions deny the correctness of this
finding , stating that the ILA had specifically demanded that
alleged supervisors should be excluded from voting , and that
at least they should vote in a separate area under challenge.
Regardless of such demand , we find, in agreement with the
Regional Director, that the Board ' s rules do not require that
separate areas be established for the challenged voters.
With respect to that portion of the objection dealing with the
expression of views by supervisors , several employees stated
in support of the allegation , that supervisors actively engaged
in electioneering in the proscribed area. Thus , employee Ortas
4Although the ILA's exceptions to the report state that Valentin promised work to 10 other
workmen if they would vote for the UTM. no supporting evidence on this point was submitted.
5 It appears that Valentin works for Pope & Talbot 2 or 3 days a month and the rest of the
time for Bull Insular Line as a rank-and-file longshoreman.
6 See Wilson and Company , 95 NLRB 882 at 885.
7 The evidence offered by the ILA with respect to this objection relates only to seven
alleged foremen.
904 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
stated that the brothers Angel and Jesus Castro , both foremen
for Pope & Talbot , remained all day throughout the election
area about 10 yards from the voting table and that he heard
them say to unidentified voters to get rid of those "sub-
marinos ."s Angel Castro stated he had voted and immediately
left . Jesus Castro stated he had been a foreman , but was not
then employed , and denied having been in the election area.
The Regional Director credits the statements of the brothers.
The exceptions state that these brothers were intensely in-
terested in the election outcome, remained in the proscribed
area, and that their evidence was corroborated by the state-
ments of other employees.
Employee Vializ stated that three supervisors had campaigned
for the UTM in the election area in Mayaguez , and that all had
cast challenged ballots . Foreman Julio Valentin was alleged to
have told a group of voters that they would be without bread if
they voted for the ILA . Valentin stated that he was a foreman,
that he was not a member of either the UTM of ILA, that on
the election day he was on the street to observe the progress of
the polls , and that while idling there, a group of employees
approached him and asked his view on the election , to which
he answered that he thought it might be time for a change.
Thereafter he admitted that employee Vializ protested
Valentin ' s presence inthe area , whereuponhe left at the request
of the Board agent.
Foreman Nazario stated that he was a part-time foreman,
that he was in the election area, voted without challenge, but
did not campaign in any way. He was a member of the ILA and
stated that he had refused to join the UTM sponsored work
stoppage 5 days before the election . Foreman Czuhigger said
he had not been in the election area at any time, had not voted,
was an ILA member, and had spent most of the day at the
ILA offices.
Because the Board's records contradicted Vializ' statement
that the foreman had cast challenged ballots, and because of
the uncontradicted evidence that at least two of the foremen
were ILA members , the Regional Director found Vializ's state-
ments not credible . He also found that Valentin ' s remark that
it was time for a change , containing no element of benefit or
threat, was protected by Section 8 (c) of the Act . The exceptions
point out that the report fails to make a finding on the coercive
remark of Valentin and of many other employees who made
statements as to similar action. However , no other specific
instances of such alleged illegal conduct is indicated in the ILA
exceptions . We find no basis in the ILA exceptions that would
warrant a reversal of the Regional Director's findings . However,
even if we assume that the above - mentioned foremen made the
remarks attributed to them, we believe that the objections there -
to raise no substantial and material issues with respect to the
8 This is a term meaning fifth columnist.
BULL INSULAR LINE, INC. ET AL. 905
conduct of the election . It is not alleged in the objections nor
was any evidence offered to the effect that the employees
alleged to have been intimidated by such remarks were rank-
and-file employees of the particular employer for whom the
foreman involved at times acted ina supervisory capacity.9 Ac-
cordingly , we find no basis for inferring that the remarks in
question affected the votes of employees in the absence of
evidence that a supervisory relationship existed between the
individual employee and the foreman alleged to have made the
coercive statements.
In further support of its objections , the ILA offered the
statement of employee Panigua that he saw Rivera and
Gonzalez , foremen, 10 in the San Juan voting area during polling
hours and that Rivera had distributed sandwiches to the voters.
Employee Recio also stated that Rivera gave him a sandwhich,
told him that it was to be eaten , not thrown away, and that he
heard Rivera tell another employee to whom he gave a sandwhich
that he had to vote for UTM.
The Regional Director found that Gonzalez and Rivera were
improperly in the voting area after having voted and that
Rivera improperly distributed sandwiches. However , he also
found that their presence and alleged campaigning were too
trivial and isolated to warrant a recommendation that the
election be set aside , that the objection on the issues of
supervisory interference was not sufficiently supported by
evidence , and that no substantial and material issue had been
raised with respect to the election.
We agree with the Regional Director in finding that the
conduct indicated above was improper. However , inthe absence
of evidence that this conduct occurred in the presence of a
substantial number of voters" we cannot say that these in-
stances of supervisory interference in an election involving
over 7,000 eligible voters warrant us in setting aside the
election . " Accordingly , we find without merit the ILA ' s excep-
tion to the Regional Director ' s finding with respect to objections
Nos. 2 and 3.
Of the next group, consisting of objections Nos. 4, 5, and 6,
Nos. 5 and 6 will not be considered, because, as noted above,
no exceptions were taken to the Regional Director ' s recom-
mendations that they be overruled . As to objection No. 4.,
this objection alleges that the Bull Insular Line granted per-
mission to the rival union to distribute literature and to engage
in propaganda on company property while refusing a like
9 It appears that several of the foremen listed above spend varying amounts of their time as
rank-and-file employees.
ioRivera and Gonzalez conceded they were foremen for Pope & Talbot, but that they also
worked as rank-and-file employees the greater part of the time. Rivera was treasurer of
UTM.
"The objections do not identify the voting places involved nor do they indicate the number
of employees who might have been affected by the foregoing statement.
12 Wilson and Company, footnote 6, supra.
906 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
privilege to the ILA. The Regional Director found that no
evidence in support of this objection had been submitted, and
recommended that the objection be overruled. In the absence
of evidence to support this objection, we agree with the
Regional Director's recommendation.
Objections Nos. 7, 8, and 9 concern the allegations that the
ILA was denied the right to challenge. With respect to objection
No. 7, employee Recio stated that when he was an ILA observer
at San Juan, he challenged 2 or 3 voters, but when he tried to
challenge others,'' he was told he could not do so because
insufficient reasons were alleged for the challenge. The
Regional Director found, on the basis of his investigation,
that Recio had not been deprived of his privilege to challenge
voters and recommended that the Board overrule this objection.
We adopt this finding.
Objection No. 8 alleges that the practice of the Board in
dividing the alphabetically prepared eligibility list among 4
voting tables prejudiced the ILA in its exercise of the right to
challenge. The Regional Director's report states that the
eligibility list. for voting at San Juan had been broken down
alphabetically into 4 groups to facilitate voting, that copies
of the list were given to the parties prior to the election,
and that each party had 2 observers at each of the tables.
Other than the general statement that the Board's procedure
hampered the right of challenge, no exception was taken to
the Regional Director's finding that this customary break-
down in the eligibility list was not prejudicial. We therefore
agree with the Regional Director thatno substantial or material
issues were raised by this objection.
Objection No. 9 states that several employees of certain
employers in the unit were denied the right to vote. Prior to
the election, three employers had notified the Board that they
had resigned from the Association and had determined to
abandon joint bargaining on their behalf. These were the Puerto
Rico Marine & Dock Terminal Co., formerly known as Abarca
Corp., an Juan Mercantile Corp., and Bohn Brothers Inc. la
As a question arose whether the employees of these companies
were eligible to vote for a bargaining representative, the
Board advised the parties that under the circumstances, the
employees could vote subject to the right of challenge.15
The ILA takes the position that prior to receiving advice
from the Board the Regional Director had expressed the
opinion that these employees would probably not be allowed
to vote, and that consequently many of them were dissuaded
13 The employee was vague as to their identity stating "I do not remember the names; there
were several (over or nearly 100)."
MBohn Brothers was not involved in this issue as it had no employees in the unit found ap-
propriate.
is in view of the withdrawal of these three employers from the Association, and their indica-
tion to pursue a course of independent bargaining in the future, we shall not include their em-
ployees in the unit hereinafter established by the Board.
BULL INSULAR LINE, INC. ET AL. 907
from exercising that right despite the Board's subsequent
advice to the parties that these employees could vote under
challenge . The ILA further urges that the employees of these
three companies were not allowed to vote even when they
attempted to do so . The Regional Director found, however,
that although the ILA was given an opportunity to show that
the employees in question were not allowed to vote, it had
failed to produce such evidence . Accordingly, we agree with
the Regional Director ' s recommendation that this objection be
overruled.
Because the exceptions on the issue of challenges covered by
objections Nos. 7, 8, and 9 present no further evidence in
support thereof , we hereby adopt the Regional Director's
recommendation that these objections be overruled.
In addition to the 11 specific objections indicated above, the
ILA raised a number of additional objections , which the Regional
Director found did not grow out of the formal objections filed
with the Board and served on the parties . He therefore found
them immaterial and irrelevant . We agree with the Regional
Director ' s ruling and for this reason we shall not consider
such miscellaneous objections or the exceptions filed thereto.
The tally of ballots shows that of approximately 7,066 eligible
voters, 2,378 votes were cast for UTM, 1,658 were cast for the
ILA, 39 for no participating labor organization , 54 ballots were
declared void , and 593 ballots were challenged. As the
challenged ballots were insufficient to affect the outcome of the
election, no report on challenged ballots was submitted.
Voting group 2--Case No. 24-RC-248
This group involves the stevedores and related classi-
fications at the port of Ponce. The Board ' s Order gives them
a choice of a port- or an island-wide unit. There were 2,000
eligible voters.
In support of the ILA' s claim that supervisors improperly
influenced the election at Ponce, the statements of 3 employees
were presented in the investigation . Employee Santos stated
that he saw Superintendent Fourquet of Alcoa Steamship Co.,
Inc., and Pope & Talbot, on 2 different occasions drive em-
ployees from the docks to the polls, and that he saw a UTM
banner on top of the car. However , he stated that he did not see
the employees either get into or out of the car . In a previous
sworn statement , Santos stated that he had seen Fourquet
make 6 or 7 trips and that Fourquet had delivered the employees
to the polls . Fourquet denied that he had used his car to
transport employees on the election day and that he ever had a
UTM banner on top of his car. In view of Santos ' contradictory
remarks, the Regional Director did not credit this evidence.
There is no specific exception to this finding.
Employee Echevarria stated that while acting as an ILA
observer , he saw 7 supervisory employees in the election
908 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
area during the polling hours, all of whom, he said, were
talking in favor of the UTM. He stated that he saw 1 Tantao,
argue with Perez, 1 of the alleged foremen, telling the latter
that he could not stay around to "make propaganda ." Tantao,
on the other hand, stated that he saw Perez talking to employees,
but that this was outside the customhouse , which was used
as a polling place . The Regional Director did not credit
Echevarria' s evidence , first, because it was contradicted by
Tantao, and second, because the physical facts were such as
to make it extremely unlikely that Echevarria could have over-
heard Tantao' s conversation . The distance between the voting
table, where Echevarria was, and the gate, where Tantao was
located, was over 50 feet . The area between the 2 men was
crowded with waiting voters . As the alleged conversation,
according to Tantao , took place beyond the gate, the Regional
Director found it inconceivable that Echevarria could have
overheard this conversation . No specific exception was taken
to this finding.
All 7 supervisory employees involved in this charge admitted
they were foremen for one or another member of the Asso-
ciation, but only occasionally, that all worked much more
frequently as nonsupervisory employees, for different em-
ployers. All were members of the UTM and voted but the
ballots of only 2 of the 7 were challenged . All denied any attempt
to influence the voters. One of them admitted that while on the
job he had spoken "to hiq laborers " about UTM, saying "it
was good and I was abona -fide member of UTM." The Regional
Director found no substantial evidence of interference bythese
alleged supervisors , and that the statement of one of the fore-
men to his men working with him was not in itself , without
more, improper . No specific exceptions were taken to these
findings.
No evidence was submitted in support of Objection No. 4,
concerning alleged discrimination against the ILA in the use of
company grounds for campaign purposes , and the Regional
Director therefore recommended overruling this objection.
Although the ILA excepted to this recommendation generally,
it submitted no evidence in support thereof . We shall therefore
uphold the Regional Director ' s recommendation . As no specific
exceptions were taken to the Regional Director ' s recommenda-
tions on the remaining objections , we hereby affirm them.
As indicated with reference to voting group 1 considered
above, we cannot say that these instances of supervisory inter-
ference in an election involving 2,000 eligible voters , warrant
setting aside the election . Accordingly, we find without merit
the ILA's exceptions to the Regional Director' s findings and
recommendations with respect to the election in group 2.
The tally of ballots shows that of approximately 2, 000 eligible
voters, 965 votes were cast for UTM, 75 for the ILA, 49 for
Union de Trabajadores de Abordo y Muelles de Ponce, Ind.,
54 against any participating union, and 39 were challenged. As
BULL INSULAR LINE, INC. ET AL. 909
the challenged ballots were insufficient to affect the outcome
of the election , no report on challenged ballots was submitted
for this group.
Because the Union de Trabajadores de Muelles y Ramas
Anexas de Puerto Rico ( UTM) has received a majority of the
valid votes cast in the election in groups 1 and 2, we find that
the employees in these groups have indicated their desire to
constitute a single unit , which we find under the circumstances
to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining . Accord-
ingly, we shall certify the UTM (AFL) as the exclusive repre-
sentative in the combined unit.
[The Board certified the Union de Trabajadores de Muelles
y Ramas Anexas de Puerto Rico (UTM), AFL,' as the
designated collective -bargaining representative of the em-
ployees of the members of the Puerto Rico Steamship Asso-
ciation in the unit found by the Board to be appropriate in
Cases Nos . 24-RC-197 ( group 1) and 24-RC-248 ( group 2),]
Voting Group 3--Cases Nos. 24-RC-359 and 24-RM-12
This group involves employees classified as checkers and
related classifications working for employer-members of the
Association at San Juan . Approximately 575 eligible voters were
listed.
In support of its objections that supervisors had interfered
with this election , the ILA presented employee Nevarez. He
stated that when he and several other employees , of whom he
identified 2, attempted to vote, they were challenged by a number
of people including 2 unidentified supervisors . It appears that
the difficulties Nevarez and his group encountered in voting
arose out of an attempt of the employees to vote in groups 1
and 3. Nevarez stated that he had no trouble in voting in group
1, but when he and his group tried to vote in group 3 they were
challenged , but that 2 of the group , Burgos and Nieves, left
because of the interference of the supervisors . The Regional
Director ' s investigations showed that Nevarez and Burgos
had cast challenged ballots in group 1 and that they and Nieves
had voted unchallenged in group 3 . The exceptions, while
repeating the charge that this group was interfered with by
supervisors , offered no additional evidence in support of this
allegation.
We find that the objections to the election in this group raise
no substantial and material issues and we therefore overrule
them. No other exceptions were taken to the Regional Director's
report concerning this group.
The tally of ballots shows that of the 575 eligible voters, 146
cast votes for the ILA, 227 for the Union de Empleados de
16 We have been advised that this moon has affiliated with the American Federation of Labor
subsequent to the election.
910 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Muelles de Puerto Rico, (UDEM), 1 against any participating
labor organization, and 95 ballots were challenged. 17 The
challenged ballots were therefore determinative of the election
in this group.
In his report on challenged ballots, the Regional Director
found that 42 had been challenged by the Board and/or one of
the participating labor organizations on the ground that the
names did not appear on the eligibility list; 32, whose names
appeared on the list, were challenged by the ILA on the ground
that they were improperly included by the Puerto Rico Coal
Co. and Puerto Rico Lighterage Co.; 14 were challenged on the
ground of improper identification; and the rest were individual
challenges on various grounds.
As a result of the investigation, the report recommends that
5 of the challenges be sustained, 47 challenges overruled, and
that these ballots be opened and counted, that should the latter
not be determinative, a further investigation be undertaken to
resolve the remaining challenges for which no recommendation
is made. As no exceptions were taken to the report on challenged
ballots in this group, we sustain the Regional Director's
recommendation.
[The Board directed that as part of the investigation to
ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining with the Employer, Bull Insular Line, Inc., the Regional
Director for the Twenty-fourth Region shall, pursuant to the
Rules and Regulations of the Board , within ten (10 ) days from
the date of this Direction , open and count the challenged
ballots of the 47 employees referred to in the Regional Di-
rector ' s report , and thereafter prepare and cause to be served
upon the parties a supplemental tally of ballots.]
Voting Group is 4--Case No. 24-RC-225
This group involves a single Employer, the drydock employees
of the Puerto Rico Dry Dock and Marine Terminal, Inc., at
San Juan. Approximately 100 eligible voters were involved. The
tally shows that 46 votes were cast for the ILA, 17 for the UTM,
1 against any labor organization , is and 29 votes were challenged.
As the challenged ballots would affect the results of the
election , the Regional Director investigated these challenges,
and recommended that certain challenges be sustained. He
made no recommendations with regard to other challenged
ballots, inasmuch as they could not affect the results of the
election . No exceptions were taken to this report . Because the
17 The UTM was given permission to withdraw from the ballot.
I8No objections to the election appear to relate to his Group and no exceptions to the report
on elections and challenged Ballots were filed by the participating unions.
m Permission was granted to the Confederacion General de Trabajadores de Puerto Rico
(Autentica) to withdraw from the ballot.
BULL INSULAR LINE, INC. ET AL. 911
International Longshoremen's Association, District Council of
the Ports of Puerto Rico (ILA) has received a majority of the
valid votes cast in the election in group 4, but has not been
selected as the bargaining representative of the islandwide
unit, we find that the employees in group 4 constitute a
separate appropriate unit. Accordingly, we shall certify the
ILA as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees
of the Employer.
[The Board certified the International Longshoremen's
Association, District Council of the Ports of Puerto Rico (ILA)
as the designated collective -bargaining representative of the
employees of the Employer, Puerto Rico Dry Dock and Marine
Terminal, Inc., in the unit herein found by the Board to be
appropriate in Case No. 24-RC-225.]
Voting Group2o 5--Case No. 24-RM-8
This group relates to a unit of repair and maintenance
workers employed by one Employer, Eastern Sugar Associates
at Punta Santiago. The tally shows that there were approxi-
mately 75 eligible voters, 1 vote was cast for the ILA, 56 for
the Union de Construccion, Reparacion, Mantenimiento y
Trabajos Portuarios de Punta Santiago (UCRM).21 There were
5 challenged ballots. As the UCRM received a majority of the
valid votes cast in the election in group 5, we shall certify
this labor organization as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of these employees. Further, inasmuch as UCRM is
the existing bargaining representative, we find that the fore-
going employees constitute a separate appropriate unit.
[The Board certified the Union de Construccion, Reparacion,
Mantenimiento y Trabajos Portuarios de Punta Santiago (UCRM)
as the designated collective -bargaining representative of the
employees of the Employer, Eastern Sugar Associates at Punta
Santiago, in the unit of repair and maintenance workers found
by the Board to be appropriate in Case No. 24-RM-8.]
Voting Group 6--Case No. 24-RM-8
This group involved warehouse stevedores and related
classifications for the Eastern Sugar Associates at Punta
Santiago. The tally shows that there were approximately 140
eligible voters, 5 votes were cast for the ILA, 104 for the
Union de Trabajadores del Muelle y Almacenes de Punta
Santiago (UTMA), and 21 ballots were challenged. As it
appears that the UTMA received a majority of the valid
2ONo objections to the elections were filed in groups 5 and 6 and in Case No. 24-RC-246.
21 The Union de Trabajadores de Muelles y Ramas Anexas de Puerto Rico (UTM) was given
permission to withdraw from the ballot.
9 12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
votes cast, we shall certify that labor organization as the
exclusive representative of these employees. Further, inas-
much as the UTMA is the existing bargaining representative,
we find that the foregoing employees constitute a separate
appropriate unit.
[The Board certified the Union de Trabajadores del Muelle
y Almacenes de Punta Santiago (UTMA) as designated collective-
bargaining representative of the employees of the Employer,
Eastern Sugar Associates at Punta Santiago, in the unit of ware-
house stevedores found by the Board to be appropriate in Case
No. 24-RM-8.]
Case No. 24-RC-246
In the unit found appropriate by the Board in this proceeding,
there were approximately 18 eligible voters. No ballots were
cast for any participating labor organization, 17 ballots were
cast against any participating labor organization, and 1 ballot
was declared void. We shall therefore issue a certification of
results of election to that effect.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was
not cast for International Longshoremen ' s Association, District
Council of the Ports of Puerto Rico (ILA) or Union de Empleados
de Muelles and that neither of the said Unions is the exclusive
representative of the employees of the Employer in the unit
heretofore found by the Board to be appropriate in Case No.
24-RC-246.1
H. O. WHEELER AND E. L. BURNHAM, co-partners doing
business as TACOMA HARBOR LUMBER AND TIMBER
CO., and H. O. WHEELER, surviving partner, doingbusiness
as TACOMA HARBOR LUMBER AND TIMBER CO. and
JOSEPH E. WELCOME
LUMBER AND SAWMILL WORKERS UNION, LOCAL NO. 2758
and JOSEPH E. WELCOME. Cases Nos. 19-CA.759 and 19-
CB-234. May 20, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 18, 1953, Trial Examiner David F. Doyle
issued his Intermediate Report inthe above -entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging
in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that they
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
as set forth in the Intermediate Report attached hereto. There-
after, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local No. 2758,
108 NLRB No. 127.