domingo, 16 de febrero de 2014

Trademark property issues in PR's liquor industry




The term tangible property is literally everything that can be touch and includes real property and personal property; this is the definition also for law (Cheeseman, 2010). The U.S. economy is based on the freedom of ownership of property.  Real estate and personal property are tangible properties, but there is also the intellectual property rights have value to any business or individual.  The trade secrets makes any business different from their competitors, trade secrets includes formulas, patterns, designs, data, customers lists and business secrets. The state laws impose civil damages and criminal penalties against persons who misappropriate trade secrets.  
Federal laws provide protection for intellectual property rights, patterns, copyrights or trademarks.   The owner is obliged to take precautions to prevent that secret to be discovered by others.  If the owner doesn’t protect the trade secret, the secret is no longer subject to protection under state law. The precautions to protect the trade secret may include fences in buildings, locks on doors and hiring security for the protection.  The owner of a trade secret can bring a lawsuit against anyone who obtains the trade secret by theft, bribery or industrial espionage.  If the owner of trade secret wins they can recover the profits made by the offender for the use of the trade secret, and prohibit the offender of divulging and using the trade secret.
The Bacardi Corporation filled a lawsuit against French spirit maker Pernod Ricard over the use of the Havana Club trademark in the American market.  It was a two decade fight in court for the trademark. The case began in 1994 when Bacardi applied for a U.S. trademark for Havana Club after they purchased the rights to the brand from the Arechabales family, a family that make rum in Cuba and sold Havana Club in the United States in 1930.  The Arechabales family went in exile and the registration lapsed in 1973,   Cuba export registers the Havana Club mark in 1976. Cuba export suit Bacardi when they tried to register the mark to decades after they register.   After a long battle in court of two decades they took the case to the Supreme Court, the decision of the Supreme Court was not to intervene in the trademark dispute.   After the Supreme Court decision Mr. Pernod announced a new trademark Havanista, that he had register.    Registering Havanista trademark was for him to have an opportunity to distribute premium Cuban rum one day.
Trademark property rights for the liquor industry
The government, through the camera projects, protects the rights of brand liquor industry. For example, years ago, they worked with the Law no. 265 of September 4, 1998 - To amend the “Revenue Code of Puerto Rico Internal Revenue Code of 1994" and to repeal the "Alcoholic Beverages Act of Puerto Rico " (P. de la C. 1422) Act 265, 1998.
This law was created to repeal Act No. 143 of June 30, 1969, as amended, known as the “Beverage of Puerto Rico" in order to adjust the Alcoholic Beverages Act of Puerto Rico with the new changes in trade world, and give the Treasury Department the flexibility to attend and oversee agile development liquor trade.
It is common knowledge that the Alcoholic Beverages Act of Puerto Rico responded to an original scheme of an amended law in 1969. From then until the present, there have been developments in the liquor industry that warrant significant changes to promote better movement of alcoholic beverage products supervised by the Department of Finance. This Act, with the changes proposed today, must upgrade the consumption patterns of alcoholic beverage products within Puerto Rican society, free trade of these and adequate oversight by the Treasury Department. To achieve these purposes this Act was amended. Here are the sections that apply to the protection of trademark rights in the liquor industry:
·         Section 4051 - . Formula for Alcoholic Beverages
No person shall manufacture and package liquor for commercial purposes without first obtaining the approval of the Secretary of the formulas of the products , and demand from the Secretary , submit samples thereof.
·         Section 4052 - . Denatured Alcohol
(a) Formulas - . No person shall manufacture denatured spirits or specially denatured alcohol for industrial or commercial purposes, including the rubbing alcohol and goods made from denatured alcohol, unless the formula for making the same has been approved by the Secretary. Those persons shall submit samples of products when required by the Secretary.
·         Section 4054 - . Rum Puerto Rico
All rum label use in the phrase " Ron de Puerto Rico " and " Puerto Rican Rum " should be manufactured and aged for a minimum of twelve (12) months under the control of the government of Puerto Rico and meet the requirements for rum in this subtitle, and the quality requirements established by the Secretary of the Treasury by regulation to that effect.
All were to be shipped or exported from Puerto Rico must be produced and aged under government control and meet the requirements for rum in this Subtitle , and quality requirements established by the Secretary by regulation to that effect. Distilled spirits shall be not less than twelve (12) months of age at the time of being removed from the bonded warehouse where it’s aged.
·         Section 4072 - . They will use packaging with No Last Name, Trade Name or Brand Factory of Another Firm
No holder of a permit issued in accordance with the provisions of this subtitle or any other law, use or permit to be used in any way shape or any container, bottle or container bearing the name, trade mark, trade name or corporate belonging to or used by another permittee entitled thereto, without the consent of the owner.
A trademark is any word, name, symbol or device or any combination thereof that: identifies and distinguishes the good of a person, including a unique product, from those manufactured or sold by others and to indicate the source of goods even if that source is unknown.  In Puerto Rico the protection of trademark law is enshrined in the Trade Marks Act of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Act No. 63 of August 14, 1991 10 LPRA sec. 171 et seq. Under this law, a trademark is “any sign or device used to distinguish market products or services of a person, product or services of another person ", 10 LPRA sec. 171.
This allows us to determine who has a better right to a trademark: a company that first registered Trademark of the Department of State of the Commonwealth but has not used it, or subsequent federal registrant, who first before the used commercially in the United States and Puerto Rico.
For example, if the Company X requests the Patent and Trademark Office U.S. registration of certain brand and the request is made with the bona fide intention to use the mark in a certain industry. Start using the product in interstate commerce of the United States with the application date in February and obtained registration of the mark in June of that same year.
In May, another company M asked the State Department of Puerto Rico that would record in his favor certain brand and same product line above company. The application for registration is made without the use of the mark in commerce previously, but with the intention of using it. After some steps, the State Department finally registered the trademark.
In August, the company X expands the use of the brand to Puerto Rico. Company X submitted to the State Department a request for cancellation of the trademark registration of the company M. In his petition, said that he had registered the same mark for the same type of product, in the Federal Register of the Patent and Trademark Office. 
He said that of allowing the coexistence of both brands, consumers would be confused and could acquire the company product M.  In Puerto Rico the protection of trademark law is enshrined in the Trade Marks Act of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Act No. 63 of August 14, 1991 10 LPRA sec. 171 et seq. (hereinafter Trademark Law). Through this section the existence of a trademark owner following the registration of the Trademarks in the State Department recognized. However, that right is conditional on the registration to be made validly and also succumb to the timely claim by having a better right over the trademark for having used before.
Our Trademark Act, therefore, combines "the right born for use with the right set up with the record." Joint Committees of Cooperatives, Commerce and Industrial Development and the Judiciary Report P. S. 995 of June 19, 1991. However, by registering a trademark with or without use, the applicant must meet several requirements. The quoted Section 4 of the Trademark Act of Puerto Rico 10 LPRA sec. 171b includes the formal requirements to apply for registration.  The Section 5 10 LPRA sec. 171c, on the other hand, lists a number of prohibitions that affect the register process of a mark.
Under that section, you cannot register, including: a mark that is identical to a mark already registered or known, belonging to another and used in products or services of the same descriptive properties or both resemble the another mark that is likely to cause confusion or mistake in the mind of the public or lead to deception of purchasers 10 LPRA sec. 171c (a) (7).  However, even when you've already made the registration of a mark, it can be subject to a cancellation request. To this end, Article 19 of the Trademark Act of Puerto Rico 10 LPRA sec. 171q provides that a person aggrieved by the registration of a trademark may request cancellation by submitting a letter to the Secretary.
If at the time of filing more than five (5) years have elapsed since the registration of the mark, the cancellation will proceed only if present one of the basics outlined in Article 19, supra, as follows:
·         Abandonment of the mark,
·         A search conducted in violation of the provisions of the law,
·         The advent of the generic brand name product or service for which it is used
·         Use of registration or permission of the registered owner so that cause confusion about the nature, quality, characteristics or geographical origin of the product or service for which it is used
·         A record obtained by deceit.
Actions managers may take to protect the trademark property rights
      There are laws in both the United States and Puerto Rico that protect and establish rights in the mark or service mark based on the use made of the mark. Although it is not required to register the mark, it is highly recommended as it provides distinct advantages.  Registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of ownership. Remedies such as actions for damages or seizure orders are some of the actions that infringers could be exposed.
      The trademarks used in interstate commerce of Puerto Rico may be protected if registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office. However, to extend the reach in the protection in situations of intrastate commerce, local registration is recommended to protect the trademark.
      The process to register a trademark in Puerto Rico begins by filling an application that sets the mark and the goods or services that are used. This request is submitted to the Secretary of State along with a sworn statement on the right to use the mark, facsimiles of the mark as used or proposed to be used, and payment of a fee of $150.00 (Franchise, 2013).  The renewal of registration must be made within the term of 10 years. The brand owner has to file a sworn declaration of continuous use accompanied by a sample of the use of the mark before the term expires.   During the fifth year after the application filing date, a similar declaration of continuing use must be filed otherwise the registration lapses (Franchise, 2013).
      Act No. 80 of 2011 of Puerto Rico, known as the “Ley para la Protección de Secretos Comerciales e Industriales de Puerto Rico”, provides protection for know-how. The Trade Secrets Act covers all information that is not generally known or accessible and provides its owner with an economic value or advantage ("Act No. 80 of 2011 - Ley para la Protección de Secretos Comerciales e Industriales de Puerto Rico, "2011). To be protected under this law owner must take steps to ensure the confidentiality of its information.
      The "Act No. 80 of 2011 - Ley para la Protección de Secretos Comerciales e Industriales de Puerto Rico" (2011) provide a list of reasonable measures that must be taken such as:
·         restricting the number of persons authorized to access certain information;
·         requiring employees to sign a non-disclosure agreement;
·         formally classifying information as confidential; and
·         implementing technological restrictions on the transmission or use of information.
      The "Act No. 80 of 2011 - Ley para la Protección de Secretos Comerciales e Industriales de Puerto Rico,” (2011) creates new causes of action against any person that:
·         acquires from another person a trade secret that was acquired by improper means; or
·         discloses a trade secret without the consent of the secret’s owner, if the disclosing party knew or should have known the trade secret was obtained illicitly.
      This law also attempts to protect the confidentiality of the information through measures that ensure the integrity of the trade secrets in cutting processes. The most common remedies under the Trade Secrets Act are damages and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees or royalty payments.
      In addition to the Trade Secrets Act, the general Tort and Property Law of Puerto Rico as well as the unfair competition statutes and regulations may be used to protect trade secrets. Furthermore, rule 513 of the Puerto Rico Rules of Evidence declares trade secrets to be privileged information and rule 23.2(g) of the Puerto Rico Rules of Civil Procedure allows protective orders to prevent disclosure of trade secrets (Franchise, 2013). 
In the success of a trademark exist some factors, there's no a miracle formula to the existence of the trademark. ''No matter what market place you operate in; no matter size and scope of your firm; registered  trade mark is simply a must for your business. It will serve to protect differentiate and add-value to what you do and therefore make your business stand out in the crow’’ (Elms, 2013). There can be procedure and laws that protected the trademarks but everything relapse in the managers and employees who follow the rules in order to keep the positive work done correctly and preventing that others company’s take the ideas.
The managers are the ones that have to take some action and educate the employees correctly, so all of them can protect the organization’s property rights. We have to know that not only the competitors will pay attention to every movement that your company do, also you are going to find internal persons in your own company that are taking some of your ideas.
What managers will do to protect from the competitors: (Internal)
·         Educate employees awareness training can be effective.
·         If information is confidential to your company, the manager put a banner or label on it that says so.
·         Lock all the rooms where sensitive data is stored it would be digital or physical.
  • Protect the passwords in the area that you have your system
  • Install anti-virus software and keep it up to date.
·         Prevent unauthorized users from hacking into your system
  •  Always have a back up for your work
·         Send people to inspect the physical premises, find out what kind of     access people have to key systems.
·         Always maintain an original copy of source code.
You have to be aware to what people did you trust because your ideas can be tell to the wrong people, so you have to take some action before them to protect the ideas. Is very important that you keep everything in the IP rights, this will help you against time-consuming and expensive.For this kind of problems exist the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 1051 et seq., ch. 540, 60 Stat. 427 [1988 & Supp. V 1993] that granted you protection of a federally registered mark against of the use of similar marks.
This Act specifically will protect you against trademark infringementtrademark dilution, and false advertising. This Law also expands the types of trademarks and creates legal procedures to help trademarks enforce their rights. Remember “Don’t focus on the competition; they’ll never give you money.” (Laja, 2013).

References
Cheeseman, Henry R. (2010) Business Law, Legal Environment, Online Commerce,
Business Ethics, and International Issues, Seventh Edition Chapter 1, Pearson
Education, Inc., publishing as Prentice-Hall     
Elms, Jonathan (2013), Intellectual Property Office Trademarks: Quick Facts
Franchise (2013). Getting the Deal Through, Retrieved from http://www.franchise.org
Laja, Peep (2013), Stop copying your competitors, Retrieved from
Lanham Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 1051 et seq., chap. 540, 60 Stat. 427 [1988 & Supp. V
1993]
Law no. 80 year 2011- Ley para la Protección de Secretos Comerciales e Industriales de Puerto Rico. (2011). LexJuris, Puerto Rico, Retrieved from http://www.lexjuris.com/lexlex/Leyes2011/lexl2011080.htm
Law no. 265 of September 4, 1998 - To amend the “Revenue Code Puerto Rico Internal
Revenue Code of 1994 " and to repeal the " Alcoholic Beverages Act of Puerto
Rico " (P. de la C. 1422) Act 265, 1998 - Section 4051 - . Formula for Alcoholic Beverages
Law no. 265 of September 4, 1998 - To amend the “Revenue Code Puerto Rico Internal Revenue Code of 1994 " and to repeal the " Alcoholic Beverages Act of Puerto Rico " (P. de la C. 1422) Act 265, 1998 - Section 4052 - . Denatured Alcohol
Law no. 265 of September 4, 1998 - To amend the “Revenue Code Puerto Rico Internal Revenue Code of 1994 " and to repeal the " Alcoholic Beverages Act of Puerto Rico " (P. de la C. 1422) Act 265, 1998 - Section 4054 - . Rum of Puerto Rico
Law no. 265 of September 4, 1998 - To amend the “Revenue Code Puerto Rico Internal Revenue Code of 1994 " and to repeal the " Alcoholic Beverages Act of Puerto Rico " (P. de la C. 1422) Act 265, 1998 - Section 4072 - . No Glass Containers will be used with Name, Trade Name or Brand Factory of another Firm
Pernod Ricard USA, LLC v. Bacardi USA, Inc. 702 F. Supp. 2d 238 (D. Del. 2010)
Decided April 6, 2010
Trade Marks Act of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Act No. 63 of August 14, 1991 10 LPRA sec. 171 et seq.

Employment Law Encounters - NewCorp Scenarios



The following three legal encounters evaluate laws and risk in the employment relationship. In each encounter, we must consider what advice we would give. (University of Phoenix, 2014)
Legal Encounter 1
Conduct the Legal Issues in Reduction of Workforce simulation.
What legal issues are present? What alternatives does the manager have and what are the benefits and liabilities associated with each choice? Identify legal principles and law, both common and civil, which are relevant to your discussion.
On instructions from the senior management, the HR area should dismiss three employees of a list of five that have been identified as employees to be laid off. Here are the chosen employees, and legal issues that the company could face as a result of that decision (University of Phoenix, 2014).
Employee
Liability
Rights/Benefits
Legal Principles
Brian Carter
He has missed 17 days in two months of work due to being diagnosed with carpal tunnel.

FastServe is pulling out of the online media; his performance has not been great. The work on the 3-D mannequins did not meet the business objective. FastServe will consider providing outplacement support for Carter. He is an independent contractor.
Brian is an independent contractor position, which the risk of liability is greatly reduced. According to Tort Liability, we are not responsible for Brian’s diagnoses of carpal tunnel because under Common Law, the hiring party is not responsible for the negligence of an independent contractor.
Jenny Mills
Pregnant taking more breaks. Her pregnancy, her skill set is non-critical, cost cutting.
Her skill set is non-critical to the new direction of the company and we are cutting cost, she is a contractor.
She may claim pregnancy discrimination, but she is also a contractor. Jenny may believe that her position is being terminated due to her pregnancy, which possibly can lead to legal action. An employer may be likely to discriminate if they hold prejudices against working women and mothers, fear the productivity loss due to the absence of an employee, are unable to use temporary employees, are unable to afford overtime pay for other employees to fulfill the duties during leave, or believe that the employee will require too many accommodations even after her return. This is not the case FastServe is experiencing a reduction in force and Jenny’s position is no longer needed.
Nora Manson
Her performance and productivity are constant areas of concerns. She is an African-American worker, and also, a firebrand feminist.
Her skill set is non-critical to the new direction of the company and we are cutting cost, she is a contractor.
She is most likely to file a discrimination file.  The company may expect a race or color discrimination claim as soon as she is laid off. But she may have no strong evidence to support that. Also, she is a contractor too.

            Regarding to discrimination because of race, The Constitution of the Commonweath of Puerto Rico on Article  II, Carta de Derechos, Section 1 says: Dignity and equality of human beings; say: “The dignity of man is inviolable. All men are equal before the law No discrimination shall be made on account of race, color, sex, birth, social origin or condition, or political or religious ideas. Both the laws and the system of public education shall embody these principles of essential human equality".
            In the present case, Nora Manson could use this section to build a case alleging that his dismissal is racial discrimination, but does not apply because it is not a regular employee of the company, but an independent contractor and the laws of Puerto Rico establish that under this classification, the employee may be separated from employment at any time.
            According to the Ley de Despido Injustificado (Ley de Mesada), Ley Núm. 80 de 30 de mayo de 1976, as ammended, Art. 2. - Just cause for dismissal. (29 L.P.R.A. sec. 185b) (f) "Reductions in employment made necessary due to a reduction in the volume of production, sales or profits, anticipated or prevailing dismissal to occur."
            Brian Carter and Jenny Mills, could claim unfair dismissal, but in the cases discussed, is clearly defined that the company is laying off these employees as a measure to cope with the recession. It means that according to the Law of Puerto Rico, layoffs are justified.
            Newcorp can discharge their employees for any reason as long as it is not from discrimination based on color, sex, race, religion, age, and national origin (Cheeseman, 2010). The court reasoned that when a company distributes a handbook with specific policies or procedures they are choosing to implement or modify its existing contracts with all employees covered by the handbook (Jennings, 2006).
Legal Encounter 2


Liability of NewCorp in this situation
·         They have to avoid that Paula files a sex discrimination case based on an accusation of sexual harassment at work.
·         the safety of his employee must ensure
·         Take disciplinary action for his behavior toward Sam
·         Strengthen the internal policies of relationships between employees
·         Strengthen guidance to employees on sexual harassment at work
What might NewCorp be able to do?
They can follow the estatutes of the Ley Núm. 17 del 22 de abril de 1988 en el Artículo 10.- Every employer has a duty to keep the workplace free of sexual harassment and intimidation and should clearly state its policy against sexual harassment to their supervisors and employees and ensure that they can work in safety and dignity . Fulfilling the obligation is imposed upon the employer to prevent, deter and prevent sexual harassment in the workplace , it shall take such measures as are necessary or desirable for that purpose including, but not limited to the following :
 ( a) clearly express to their supervisors and employees that the employer has a strong policy against sexual harassment in the workplace .
 ( b ) Implement the necessary methods to raise awareness and meet the prohibition of sexual harassment in the workplace .
 ( c ) Give sufficient publicity in the workplace , for aspiring to employment rights and protections that are granted and grants under this Act, under Act No. 69 of July 6, 1985 , the Act No. 100 of June 30, 1959 , as amended and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico .
 ( d ) Establish an effective and adequate internal procedure to deal with complaints of sexual harassment.
Legal Principles Identified
Ley Núm. 17 del 22 de abril de 1988, Artículo 5. – An employer will be responsible for engaging in sexual harassment in the workplace for their actions and the actions of its agents or supervisors regardless of whether the specific acts at issue were authorized or prohibited by the employer and regardless of whether the wise employer or should be aware of such conduct.

The particular employment relationship for purposes of determining whether the person who committed the sexual harassment acted in his capacity of agent or supervisor of the employer will be examined.
 It will not be necessary to establish that the agent or supervisor who made the sexual harassment to the complainant directly supervised.
US Statutory or Case Law
In 1980 the Commission for Equal Employment Opportunity in the United States produced a set of guidelines or rules to define and punish Title VII ( in 1984 it was expanded to include educational institutions). The EEOC defines sexual harassment as :

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when:
1.      Compliance is made either explicitly or implicitly in terms or as a condition of employment so .
2.      Compliance or denial of compliance by an individual is the basis for making employment decisions affecting such individual , or
3.      Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering in the efficiency of the work of an individual , or creating an intimidating , hostile or offensive work environment.

Points 1 . and 2 . are called " quid pro quo " (Latin for " this for that" or " something for something " ) . They are essentially " sexual bribery " or promises of benefits and sexual coercion.
Type 3 . is known as "hostile work environment " is by far the most common form. It is less explicit and more subjective
PR Statutory or Case Law
Ley Núm. 17 del 22 de abril de 1988, Artículo 9. An employer will be liable under the provisions of this Act when performing any acts which adversely affect the result of the opportunities, terms and conditions of employment of any person who has opposed practices of the employer that are contrary to the provisions of this Act or has filed a complaint or lawsuit, has testified, assisted or otherwise has participated in an investigation, proceeding or hearing that urge under this law.

Legal Encounter 3
What liability, if any, does Yilmaz have in this situation?
According to OSHA website, the following liabilities apply to the case we are discussing:
(1)    Lack of a systematic safety approach
(2)   Inadequate documentation of safety efforts
(3)   Sporadic or irregular safety meetings.
(4)   Inattention to new-hire safety orientation
(5)   No response to safety audits or recommendations
(6)   Mishandling employee relations on safety issues
(7)   Failure to regularly inspect work environment
(8)   Overlooking industrial hygiene issues
(9)   Nonexistent or unenforced safety rules
              What regulatory and compliance requirements and legal principles—statutory or case law—are relevant to this situation?

            According to the Puerto Rico Occupational Safety and Health Act, on Section 8. Established Federal Standards
            (a) The Secretary may adopt at its discretion, any established federal standard, or amendment thereto, in whole or in part, as applicable to the working conditions in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and he determines ensure maximum protection safety and health of employees affected. In any case where the Secretary adopt a federal standard set, or amendment thereto, existing in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico enacted a rule or in force under this Act relating to the same matter, the existing standard will be left without effect immediately upon adoption and the effective date of the federal standard set, or amendment thereto. In any of the foregoing cases, the Secretary will not have to follow the procedures set forth in Sections 9 and 11 (a) of this Act, except to give public notice of its actions.
            (b) Notwithstanding the requirements of enactment of Law no. 112 of June 30, 1957, as amended, or any rule established federal amendment thereto adopted by the Secretary shall be effective thirty (30) days after it is filed with the Department of State of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in English only, and meets the other requirements of the Act. The Secretary shall file in the State Department, the Spanish version of that standard or amendment no later than two (2) years after the original filing date.
Conclusion
            In all discussed cases, it is important that the employer has adequate legal advice to avoid lawsuits, legal fees and having to go through lengthy and costly legal process. The management of each company must know the laws related to cases for so make the best decisions on behalf of the company.

 References

Cheeseman, Henry R. (2010) Business Law, Legal Environment, Online Commerce, Business
Ethics, and Interrnational Issues, Seventh Edition Chapter 1, Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Prentice-Hall    
Comisión para la Igualdad de   Oportunidades en el Empleo de los Estados Unidos (EEOC), Guías o Reglas para Definir y Sancionar, Título VII  1984
Constitución del Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico Articulo II, Carta de Derechos, Sección
1. Dignidad e igualdad del ser humano; discrimen, prohibido
Jennings, Marianne M. Business Ethics: Case Studies and Selected Readings. Cincinnati: West,
            3rd ed., 2006.
Ley de Despido Injustificado (Ley de Mesada), Ley Núm. 80 de 30 de mayo de 1976, según
enmendada, Art. 2. - Justa causa para el despido. (29 L.P.R.A. sec. 185b) (f)
Ley para prohibir el hostigamiento sexual en el empleo: imponer responsabilidades y fijar
penalidades de 1988, Ley Núm. 17 del 22 de abril de 1988, Artículo 5, Artículo 9 y
Artículo 10.
OSHA Laws and Regulations - https://www.osha.gov, Retrieved on February 4th, 2014
 Puerto Rico Occupational Safety and Health Act http://www.safetypr.com/tools/Ley16FinalEsp
            Retrieved on February 5, 2014
University of Phoenix, USA - Legal Issues in Reduction of Workforce Simulation,
Retrieved on February 2, 2014
University of Phoenix, USA – NewCorp Scenarios,https://newclassroom3.phoenix.edu/                       
context/co/view/activityDetails/activity, Retrieved on February 2, 2014