Adrian Belt Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 18, 1976

224 N.L.R.B. 1231 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

ADRIAN BELT COMPANY ET AL 1231
Adrian Belt Company , Hollywood Leather Creations,
Harry Goldberg Belt Company , Inc, Johe Belts,
Inc, Mahler Sales Co , Inc, and Patricia Belt Com-
pany and Los Angeles Joint Board of the Interna-
tional Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO
Case 21-CA-14233
June 18, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND PENELLO
Upon a charge filed on December 10, 1975, as
amended on December 19, 1975, by Los Angeles
Joint Board of the International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union,
and duly served on Adrian Belt Company, Holly-
wood Leather Creations, Harry Goldberg Belt Com-
pany, Inc , Jolie Belts, Inc,, Mahler Sales Co, Inc ,
and Patricia Belt Company, herein collectively called
the Respondent, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, by the Acting Regional Di-
rector for Region 21, issued a complaint and notice
of hearing on December 22, 1975, and an erratum on
January 2, 1976, against Respondent, alleging that
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in un-
fair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended Copies of the charge, complaint, erratum,
and notice of hearing before an Administrative Law
Judge were duly served on the parties to this pro-
ceeding
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the com-
plaint alleges in substance that on November 17,
1975, following a Board election in consolidated
Cases 21-RM-1654, 21-RM-1656, 21-RM-1658,
21-RM-1659, 21-RM-1660, 21-RM-1663, 21-RM-
1664, and 21-RM-1665, the Union was duly certified
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of Respondent's employees in the unit found appro-
priate,' and that, commencing on or about Decem-
ber 10, 1975, and at all times thereafter, Respondent
has refused, and continues to date to refuse, to bar-
gain collectively with the Union as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative, although the Union has re-
' Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding
Cases 21-RM-1654 et a[ as the term record is defined in Secs 102 68
and 102 69(g) of the Board s Rules and Regulations Series 8 as amended
See LTV Electrosystems Inc 166 NLRB 938 (1967) enfd 388 F 2d 683
(C A 4 1968) Golden Age Beverage Co 167 NLRB 151 (1967) enfd 415
F 2d 26 (C A 5 1969) Intertype Co v Penello 269 F Supp 573 (D C Va
1967) Follett Corp 164 NLRB 378 (1967) enfd 397 F 2d 91 (C A 7 1968)
Sec 9(d) of the NLRA as amended
quested and is requesting it to do so On January 15
and 30, 1976, respectively, Respondent filed its an-
swer and amended answer to the complaint, admit-
ting in part, and denying in part, the allegations in
the complaint
On February 26, 1976, counsel for the General
Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for
Summary Judgment Subsequently, on March 3,
1976, the Board issued an order transferring the pro-
ceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show Cause
why the General Counsel's Motion for Summary
Judgment should not be granted Respondent there-
after filed a response to Notice To Show Cause enti-
tled "Motion in Opposition to General Counsel's
Motion for Summary Judgment "
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
In its answer and amended answer and its re-
sponse to the Notice to Show Cause, Respondent ad-
nuts its refusal to bargain, but attacks the validity of
the Union's certification In this regard, Respondent
contends the Board erred (1) with respect to four
challenged ballots, (2) in refusing to direct a hearing
on objections and challenges prior to the issuance of
the Regional Director's Supplemental Decision, and
(3) refusing to enforce Respondent's subpoenas duces
tecum directed to the California unemployment in-
surance and disability insurance offices
Review of the record herein, including the record
in Cases 21-RM-1654, et al, reveals that, pursuant
to the Regional Director's Decision and Direction of
Election, as amended, an election was held on No-
vember 8, 1974, among the employees in the stipulat-
ed unit The tally of ballots revealed 42 votes for the
Union, 36 votes against, and 11 challenged ballots
which were sufficient to affect the results of the elec-
tion Thereafter, Respondent filed timely objections
to conduct affecting the results of the election, alleg-
ing, in substance, illegal electioneering, impermissi-
ble captive audience speeches, misrepresentations,
threats, and promises of benefits On February 24,
1975, after investigation, the Regional Director is-
sued his Supplemental Decision and Order in which
he, inter alga, (1) upheld the Union's challenge of
Luis Beltran and Robert Garcia as supervisors, (2)
found Beatrice Polanco to be a plant clerical employ-
ee and, therefore, eligible to vote, (3) provisionally
ordered a hearing as to Yvonne King's eligibility in
224 NLRB No 167
1232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the event her challenged ballot is determinative of
the election,2 and (4) overruled Respondent's objec-
tions to the election in their entirety Respondent
filed a timely request for review of the Regional
Director's Supplemental Decision, contending the
Regional Director erred in his determinations as to
the above four challenged ballots, and requested that
the Board order a hearing thereon No review of the
overruling of Respondent's objections was requested
By telegraphic order dated April 9, 1975, the Board,
with Member Kennedy dissenting in part, denied
Respondent's request for review as it raised no sub-
stantial issues warranting review
On April 11, 1975, a revised tally of ballots was
issued showing 43 votes for and 43 votes against the
Union, leaving determinative the challenged King
ballot Following a hearing, the Hearing Officer, on
August 19, 1975, issued his report and recommenda-
tions in which he found that King was an employee
on a leave of absence on the eligibility date and,
therefore, recommended that the challenge to her
ballot be overruled The Hearing Officer further rec-
ommended that Respondent's application for en-
forcement of subpoenas duces tecum directed to the
California unemployment insurance and disability
insurance offices, whose representatives testified, be
denied Respondent filed with the Regional Director
timely exceptions to the Hearing Officer's report
The Regional Director, on September 22, 1975, is-
sued his Second Supplemental Decision and Order in
which he adopted the Hearing Officer's findings of
fact and, accordingly, overruled the challenge to
King's ballot and ordered that the ballot be opened
and counted Thereafter, Respondent filed with the
Board a timely request for review, contending that
King was erroneously found eligible to vote and that
Respondent's application for enforcement of the sub
poenas duces tecum should have been granted The
Board considered Respondent's request for review
and, by telegraphic order dated November 5, 1975,
denied the request as it raised no substantial issues
warranting review
On November 11, 1975, a second revised tally of
ballots was issued showing 44 votes for the Union
and 43 votes against Thereupon, on November 17,
1975, in the absence of objections to the tally, the
Regional Director certified the Union as the exclu-
sive representative of Respondent's employees in the
appropriate unit
It is well settled that in the absence of newly dis-
covered or previously unavailable evidence or special
circumstances a respondent in a proceeding alleging
a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled to reliti-
2 The challenges to the remaining seven ballots were overruled
gate issues which were or could have been litigated in
a prior representation proceeding 3
All issues raised by the Respondent in this pro-
ceeding were or could have been litigated in the prior
representation proceeding, and the Respondent does
not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discov-
ered or previously unavailable evidence, nor does it
allege that any special circumstances exist herein
which would require the Board to reexamine the de-
cision made in the representation proceeding We
therefore find that the Respondent has not raised
any issue which is properly litigable in this unfair
labor practice proceeding 4 We shall, accordingly,
grant the Motion for Summary Judgment
On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes
the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The California Apparel Accessory Association,
Inc , herein called the Association,' is, and at all
times material herein has been, an association com-
prising various employers, including all Respondents,
and exists for, and engages in, collective bargaining
for, and negotiates collective-bargaining agreements
on behalf of, its employer-members with the Union
The employer-members of the Association, including
Respondents, are engaged in business in southern
California in the manufacture and sale of belts In
the course and conduct of their business operations,
the employer-members of the Association, including
all Respondents which participate in multiemployer
bargaining through said Association, in the aggregate
annually sell and ship goods, materials, and supplies
valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers lo-
cated outside the State of California
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that the
Association and each of its employer-members, in-
cluding all Respondents, are and at all times material
herein have been employers engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act,
3 See Pittsburgh Plate G l a s s Co v NLRB 313 U S 146 162 (1941)
Rules and Regulations of the Board Secs 102 67(f) and 102 69(c)
4 Respondents request for a hearing herein is denied as a hearing is not
required where as here there are no properly litigable issues of fact to be
resolved Solon Manufacturing Company 222 NLRB 542 (1976) Locust In
dustries Inc 221 NLRB 604 (1975)
5 In the answer to the complaint Respondents admit the existence of the
Association and that they are employer members of a multiemployer bar
gaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining but deny present mem
bership in the Association At the representation hearing the parties mclud
ing all Respondents herein stipulated that certain employers again
including all Respondents herein were employer members of the Associa
tion and that the associationwide unit was appropriate In these circum
stances whether or not Respondents are technically present members of the
Association in no way impinges upon their obligation to bargain with the
Union in the certified multiemployer bargaining unit
ADRIAN BELT COMPANY ET AL 1233
and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Los Angeles Joint Board of the International La-
dies' Garment Workers' Union , AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A The Representation Proceeding
1 The unit
The following employees of the Respondent con-
stitute a unit appropriate for collective -bargaining
purposes within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act
Accordingly, we find that the Respondent has,
since December 10, 1975, and at all times thereafter,
refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the ap-
propriate unit, and that, by such refusal, Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with its opera-
tions described in section I, above, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic,
and commerce among the several States and tend to
lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce
All production, maintenance, shipping, and
receiving employees employed by the employer-
members of the California Apparel Accessory
Association, Inc, which includes all Respon-
dents herein, excluding all designers, head ship-
ping clerks, office and clerical employees, sales-
men, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act
2 The certification
On November 8, 1974, a majority of the employees
of Respondent in said unit, in a secret ballot election
conducted under the supervision of the Regional Di-
rector for Region 21 designated the Union as their
representative for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing with the Respondent The Union was certified as
the collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in said unit on November 17, 1975, and the
Union continues to be such exclusive representative
within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act
B The Request To Bargain and Respondent's
Refusal
Commencing on or about November 25, 1975, and
at all times thereafter, the Union has requested the
Respondents to bargain collectively with it as the ex-
clusive collective-bargaining representative of all the
employees in the above-described unit Commencing
on or about December 10, 1975, and continuing at all
times thereafter to date, the Respondent has refused,
and continues to refuse, to recognize and bargain
with the Union as the exclusive representative for
collective bargaining of all employees in said unit
V THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall
order that it cease and desist therefrom, and, upon
request, bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of all employees in the ap-
propriate unit, and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement
In order to insure that the employees in the appro-
priate unit will be accorded the services of their se-
lected bargaining agent for the period provided by
law, we shall construe the initial period of certifica-
tion as beginning on the date Respondent commenc-
es to bargain in good faith with the Union as the
recognized bargaining representative in the appropri-
ate unit See Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc, 136
NLRB 785 (1962), Commerce Company d/b/a Lamar
Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229 (1962), enfd 328 F 2d 600
(C A 5, 1964), cert denied 379 U S 817 (1964), Bur
nett Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419, 1421
(1964), enfd 350 F 2d 57 (CA 10, 1965)
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record, makes the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I The California Apparel Accessory Association,
Adrian Belt Company, Hollywood Leather Crea-
tions, Harry Goldberg Belt Company, Inc , Jolie
Belts, Inc , Mahler Sales Co, Inc , and Patricia Belt
Company, are employers engaged in commerce with-
in the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
2 Los Angeles Joint Board of the International
1234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, is a la-
bor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act
3 All production, maintenance, shipping, and re-
ceiving employees employed by the employer-mem-
bers of the California Apparel Accessory Associa-
tion, Inc, which includes all Respondents herein,
excluding all designers, head shipping clerks, office
and clerical employees, salesmen , guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining with-
in the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act
4 Since November 17, 1975, the above-named la-
bor organization has been and now is the certified
and exclusive representative of all employees in the
aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of
the Act
5 By refusing on or about December 10, 1975,
and at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively
with the above-named labor organization as the ex-
clusive bargaining representative of all the employees
of Respondents in the appropriate unit, Respondents
have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act
6 By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respon-
dents have interfered with, restrained, and coerced,
and are interfering with, restraining, and coercing,
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to
them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby have en-
gaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
7 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
All production, maintenance, shipping, and
receiving employees employed by the employer-
members of the California Apparel Accessory
Association, Inc, which includes all Respon-
dents herein, excluding all designers, head ship-
ping clerks, office and clerical employees, sales-
men, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action which the
Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named
labor organization as the exclusive representative of
all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms
and conditions of employment, and, if an under-
standing is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement
(b) Post at their Los Angeles, California, facilities
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix " 6
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 21, after being duly
signed by Respondents' representative, shall be post-
ed by Respondents immediately upon receipt there-
of, and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon-
dents to insure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent
Employers, Adrian Belt Company, Hollywood
Leather Creations, Harry Goldberg Belt Company,
Inc , Jolie Belts, Inc , Mahler Sales Co, Inc, and
Patricia Belt Company, Los Angeles, California,
their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning
rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and con-
ditions of employment with Los Angeles Joint Board
of the International Ladies' Garment Workers'
Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of their employees in the following appro-
priate unit
6 In the event that 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 National Labor Relations Board shall read Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively
concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment with Los
Angeles Joint Board of the International Ladies'
Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, as the ex-
ADRIAN BELT COMPANY, ET AL 1235
clusive representative of the employees in the
bargaining unit described below
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the
above-named Union, as the exclusive represen-
tative of all employees in the bargaining unit de-
scribed below, with respect to rates of pay, wag-
es, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment, and, if any understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement The bargaining unit is
All production, maintenance, shipping, and
receiving employees employed by the employ-
er-members of the California Apparel Acces-
sory Association, Inc, which includes all Re-
spondents herein, excluding all designers,
head shipping clerks, office and clerical em-
ployees, salesmen, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act
ADRIAN BELT COMPANY, HOLLYWOOD
LEATHER CREATIONS, HARRY GOLDBERG
BELT COMPANY, INC, JOLIE BELTS, INC,
MAHLER SALES CO , INC, AND PATRICIA BELT
COMPANY