Advertiser's Manufacturing Company

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 17, 1981

256 N.L.R.B. 644 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Advertiser's Manufacturing Company and General
Teamsters, Warehouse & Dairy Employees
Union, Local No. 126, affiliated with the Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case
30-CA-6320
June 17, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a charge filed on February 10, 1981, by
General Teamsters, Warehouse & Dairy Employ-
ees Union, Local No. 126, affiliated with the Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein
called the Union, and duly served on Advertiser's
Manufacturing Company, herein called Respond-
ent, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, by the Regional Director for
Region 30, issued a complaint on March 6, 1981,
against Respondent, alleging that Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices 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 and complaint and notice of
hearing before an administrative law judge were
duly served on the parties to this proceeding.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the
complaint alleges in substance that on January 19,
1981, following a Board election in Case 30-RC-
3809, the Union was duly certified as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of Respond-
ent's employees in the unit found appropriate;' and
that, commencing on or about February 6, 1981,
and at all times thereafter, Respondent has refused,
and continues to date to refuse, to bargain collec-
tively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining
representative, although the Union has requested
and is requesting it to do so. On March 18, 1981,
Respondent filed its answer to the complaint admit-
ting in part, and denying in part, the allegations in
the complaint.
On April 3, 1981, counsel for the General Coun-
sel filed directly with the Board a Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment. Subsequently, on April 10, 1981,
the Board issued an order transferring the proceed-
ing to the Board and a Notice To Show Cause
why the General Counsel's Motion for Summary
Judgment should not be granted. Respondent
i Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceed-
ing, Case 30-RC-3809, 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 Elecirosystems, Inc., 166 NLRB 938 (1967), enfd. 388 F.2d 683
(4th Cir. 1968); Golden Age Beverage Co., 167 NLRB 151 (1967), enfd. 415
F.2d 26 (5th Cir. 1969); Inlertype Co. v. Penello, 269 F.Supp 573
(D.C.Va. 1967); Follerr Corp., 164 NLRB 378 (1967), enfd. 397 F.2d 91
(7th Cir. 1968); Sec. 9(d) of the NLRA, as amended.
256 NLRB No. 110
thereafter filed a response to Notice To Show
Cause.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following:
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
In its answer to the complaint and in its response
to the Notice To Show Cause, Respondent admits
its refusal to bargain, but contends that it had no
duty to bargain because the Union was not proper-
ly certified. Respondent attacks the Union's certifi-
cation on the bases of its objections to the election
in Case 30-RC-3809, in the underlying representa-
tion proceeding, and its request for a hearing, both
of which the Board previously considered and re-
jected.
Review of the record herein, including the
record in Case 30-RC-3809, discloses that pursuant
to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent
Election approved on August 13, 1980, an election
was conducted on September 12, 1980, which re-
sulted in 115 votes for, and 43 votes against, the
Union and I challenged ballot, a number insuffi-
cient to affect the results. Thereafter, Respondent
filed timely objections to conduct affecting the re-
sults of the election. The Regional Director issued
his Report and Recommendations on Objections to
Conduct Affecting Results of Election on October
23, 1980, wherein he recommended that the objec-
tions be overruled in their entirety and that a certi-
fication of representative issue.
Respondent filed timely exceptions to the Re-
gional Director's report and, on January 21, 1981,
the Board issued its Decision and Certification of
Representative in which it adopted the Regional
Director's findings and and recommendations and
certified the Union as the collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of Respondent's employees in the stipu-
lated unit. In its answer and its response to the
Notice To Show Cause, Respondent is attempting
to raise and relitigate issues already litigated and
determined.
It is well settled that in the absence of newly dis-
covered or previously unavailable evidence or spe-
cial circumstances a respondent in a proceeding al-
leging a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled
to relitigate issues which were or could have been
litigated in a prior representation proceeding. 2
All issues raised by Respondent in this proceed-
ing were or could have been litigated in the prior
representation proceeding, and Respondent does
not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discov-
ered or previously unavailable evidence, nor does
2 See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. V L. RB., 313 US. 146, 162 (1941);
Rules and Regulations of the Board, Secs. 102.67(f) and 102.69(c).
ADVERTISER'S MANUFACTURING COMPANY 645
it allege that any special circumstances exist herein
which would require the Board to reexamine the
decision made in the representation proceeding. We
therefore find that Respondent has not raised any
issue which is properly litigable in this unfair labor
practice proceeding. Accordingly, we grant the
Motion for Summary Judgment.
On the basis of th- entire record, the Board
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Wisconsin corporation, is engaged
in the manufacture of cloth specialty products at its
Ripon, Wisconsin, plant. During the past calendar
year, a representative period, Respondent shipped
from its Ripon, Wisconsin, plant products, goods,
and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly
to points located outside the State of Wisconsin.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Re-
spondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and
that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
General Teamsters, Warehouse & Dairy Em-
ployees Union, Local No. 126, affiliated with the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, 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 Respondent consti-
tute a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining
purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
All regular full and regular part-time produc-
tion, maintenance, and janitorial employees of
the Respondent at its Ripon, Wisconsin plant
excluding managers, office clerical employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
2. The certification
On September 12, 1980, a majority of the em-
ployees of Respondent in said unit, in a secret-
ballot election conducted under the supervision of
the Regional Director for Region 30, designated
the Union as their representative for the purpose of
collective bargaining with Respondent.
The Union was certified as the collective-bar-
gaining representative of the employees in said unit
on January 19, 1981, 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 January 26, 1981, and
at all times thereafter, the Union has requested Re-
spondent to bargain collectively with it as the ex-
clusive collective-bargaining representative of all
the employees in the above-described unit. Com-
mencing on or about February 6, 1981, and con-
tinuing at all times thereafter to date, Respondent
has refused, and continues to refuse, to recognize
and bargain with the Union as the exclusive repre-
sentative for collective bargaining of all employees
in said unit.
Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since
February 6, 1981, and at all times thereafter, re-
fused to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the ap-
propriate unit, and that, by such refusal, Respond-
ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and
(I) 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 oper-
ations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf-
fic, and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of com-
merce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning 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 appropriate unit and, if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement.
In order to insure that the employees in the ap-
propriate unit will be accorded the services of their
selected bargaining agent for the period provided
by law, we shall construe the initial period of certi-
fication as beginning on the date Respondent com-
mences to bargain in good faith with the Union as
the recognized bargaining representative in the ap-
646 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
propriate 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 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817;
Burnett Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419,
1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th Cir. 1965).
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record, makes the following:
CONCL.USIONS OF LAW
1. Advertiser's Manufacturing Company is an
employer engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. General Teamsters, Warehouse & Dairy Em-
ployees Union, Local No. 126, affiliated with the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
3. All regular full and regular part-time produc-
tion, maintenance, and janitorial employees of the
Respondent at its Ripon, Wisconsin plant excluding
managers, office clerical employees, guards, and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. Since January 19, 1981, the above-named labor
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 February 6, 1981, and
at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with
the above-named labor organization as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of all the employees
of Respondent in the appropriate unit, Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act.
6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respond-
ent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced,
and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing,
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
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,
Advertiser's Manufacturing Company, Ripon, Wis-
consin, its 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
conditions of employment with General Teamsters,
Warehouse & Dairy Employees Union, Local No.
126, affiliated with the International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, as the exclusive bargaining
representative of its employees in the following ap-
propriate unit:
All regular full and regular part-time produc-
tion, maintenance, and janitorial employees of
the Respondent at its Ripon, Wisconsin plant
excluding managers, office clerical employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise 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 understanding is reached, embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its Ripon, Wisconsin, plant copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."3 Copies
of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 30, after being duly signed by
Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter,
in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 30,
in writing, within 20 days from the date of this
Order, what steps have been taken to comply here-
with.
a 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 Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
ADVERTISER'S MANUFACTURING COMPANY 647
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 General Teamsters, Warehouse & Dairy
Employees Union, Local No. 126, affiliated
with the International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, as the exclusive 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 employ-
ees 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 repre-
sentative of all employees in the bargaining
unit described below, with respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours, and other terms and condi-
tions of employment, and, if an understanding
is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement. The bargaining unit is:
All regular full and regular part-time pro-
duction, maintenance, and janitorial employ-
ees at our Ripon, Wisconsin plant excluding
managers, office clerical employees, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
ADVERTISER'S
COMPANY
MANUFACTURING