Aerovox Corp. of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 19, 1967

165 N.L.R.B. 623 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

AEROVOX CORPORATION 623
Aerovox Corporation of Myrtle Beach, South
Carolina and Local Union No. 382,
International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 11-CA-3291.
June 19,1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN
AND JENKINS
Upon a charge filed by Local Union No. 382,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by
the Regional Director for Region 11, issued a
complaint dated April 25, 1967, against Aerovox
Corporation of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, herein
called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices 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, and notice of hearing before a Trial
Examiner were duly served on the Respondent.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the
complaint alleges, in substance, that on or about
March 29, 1967, the Union was duly certified by the
Regional Director' as the exclusive bargaining
representative of Respondent's employees in the
unit found appropriate by the Board and that, since
on or about April 4, 1967, and thereafter,
Respondent has refused and is refusing to recognize
or bargain with the Union as such exclusive
bargaining representative, although the Union has
requested and is requesting it to do so. On May 4,
1967, the Respondent filed its answer, denying the
commission of the unfair labor practices alleged.
On May 9, 1967, the General Counsel filed with
the Board a Motion for Summary Judgment,
asserting that there were no issues of fact or law
requiring a hearing, and requesting the issuance of a
Decision and Order finding the violations as alleged
in the complaint. Thereafter, on May 10, 1967, the
Board issued an Order Transferring Proceeding to
the Board and, on the same date, a Notice to Show
Cause on or before May 24, 1967, why the General
Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment should not
be granted. Respondent thereafter filed a return
brief in opposition to the motion, and the Union filed
a memorandum in support thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the Board has delegated its powers in
connection with this case to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
makes the following:
RULING ON THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The record before us establishes that on
December 6, 1966, the Union filed a petition in Case
11-RC-2472, seeking to represent all maintenance
employees, including setup men and janitors
employed at the Employer's place of business at
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. After a hearing, the
Regional Director for Region 11 issued a Decision
and Direction of Election on January 26, 1967, in
which he found appropriate for bargaining the
following unit of employees:
All maintenance employees including setup
men and janitors employed at the Employer's
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, plant, excluding
production employees, office clerical
employees, professional employees, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
On February 7, the Respondent filed a Request
for Review of the Decision and Direction of Election.
It contended that the Regional Director's unit
finding was inappropriate on the ground that,
contrary to Board policy, the setup men and janitors
were included in a maintenance unit and that the
Regional Director's unit finding was controlled by
the extent of organization. On February 23,1967, the
Board denied review, thereby affirming the
correctness of the Regional Director's unit
determination.2
On April 4, 1967, the Union requested that the
Respondent bargain collectively with it. This request
was refused, and on April 12, 1967, the Union filed
the charge upon which these proceedings are
predicated.
In its Opposition to the Motion, the Respondent
contends in substance that: (1) the Board is without
jurisdiction in these circumstances to hear and
determine motions for summary judgment; and (2) a
hearing in an unfair labor practice proceeding is a
matter of right and therefore must be held. These
contentions are without merit. It is well settled that
the Board has authority to hear and determine
motions for summary judgment and that a hearing in
an unfair labor practice proceeding is not a matter of
right where there are no factual issues to be
determined.; Here, it is clear that the truth of the
allegations of the complaint stands admitted by
virtue of the uncontroverted factual averments of the
complaint.
The Respondent also contends that the failure to
hold a hearing precludes Respondent from offering
"additional evidence" and denies to it the due
i Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representative in
Case 11-RC-2472
2 On February 24, 1967, pursuant to the Direction, an election
was held in which 40 votes were cast for the Union and 26 against
There were eight challenged ballots, but none were
determinative Thereafter, Respondent timely filed Objections to
Election and to Conduct Affecting Results of Election The
Regional Director overruled the objections and certified the
Union The Respondent did not seek review
' E g, Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company v N L R B, 313 U S
146, Collins & Atkman Corporation, 160 NLRB 1750, and United
States Rubber Company, 155 NLRB 1298
165 NLRB No. 70
624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
process of law. In that connection it alleges that
evidence in a subsequent hearing (Case
11-CA-3214), involving the same parties, discloses
that Respondent's setup men and assistant setup
men "interrelate" their work both in the presently
certified maintenance area and in the production
area. We cannot tell whether this allegation is urged
upon us as new evidenceof a change in the duties
and interests of these categories of employees. But,
it is obvious from an examination of the Regional
Director's decision that a factor of interrelated
duties was considered by him and found insufficient
to warrant the exclusion of the setup men from the
maintenance unit sought by the Union, a decision
which we subsequently affirmed. Thus, the alleged
new evidence, if it is that, raises no factual issue not
heretofore considered by the Board. The
Respondent further alleges that a full hearing will
disclose that the petition and resulting certification
in Case 11-RC-2472 was based upon and controlled
by the extent of the organization of employees
contrary to the provisions of Section 9(c)(5) of the
Act. Specifically, it claims that although the Union in
the earlier representation case had disclaimed an
interest in the production employees, it has since
filed a petition for a unit of production employees in
Case 11-RC-2539. But this is not evidence that the
Regional Director gave controlling weight to extent
of organization within Section 9(c)(5) of the Act. On
the contrary, it is clear from the Regional Director's
decision that he did not rely on extent of organization
in determining the appropriate unit .4 As we find that
there are no matters requiring a hearing before a
Trial Examiner, we grant the General Counsel's
Motion for Summary Judgment.
On the basis of the record before it, the Board
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, a corporation duly organized and existing by
virtue of the laws of the State of South Carolina
engaged in the manufacture of capacitors and other
electrical equipment at its place of business in
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. During the past year,
which period is representative of all material times
herein, Respondent finished products valued in
excess of $50,000. During the same period,
Respondent sent these goods in excess of $50,000 to
points outside the State of South Carolina.
Respondent admits, and we find, that it 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.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local Union No. 382, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Representation Proceeding
1. The unit
The following employees at the Respondent's
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, plant constitute a
unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the
meaning of the Act:
All maintenance employees including setup
men and janitors employed at the Employer's
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, plant, excluding
production employees, office clerical
employees, professional employees, guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
2. The certification
On February 24, 1967, a majority of the employees
of Respondent in said unit, in a secret election
conducted under the supervision of the Regional
Director for Region 11, designated the Union as their
representative for the purpose of collective
bargaining with Respondent, and on March 29, 1967,
the Board certified the Union as the collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in said
unit, and the Union continues to be such
representative.
B. The Request to Bargain and the Respondent's
Refusal
On April 4, 1967, the Union requested Respondent
to bargain collectively with it as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of all the
employees in the above-described unit. Since
April 10, 1967, and continuing to date, Respondent
did refuse, and continues to refuse, to bargain
collectively with the Union as exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of all employees in said
unit.
Accordingly, we find that the Union was duly
certified by the Board as the collective-bargaining
representative of the employees of the Respondent
in the appropriate unit described above in the
Board's certification and that the Union at all times
since February 24, 1967, has been and now is the
exclusive bargaining representative of all the
employees in the aforesaid unit, within the meaning
of Section 9(a) of the Act. We further find that
4 N.L.R B v. Overnite Transportation Co , 327 F 2d 36 (C A 4),
enfg in part and reversing in part 141 NLRB 384; see also Kwtkset
Looks, Inc , 116 NLRB 1648, Montgomery Ward Co., 88 NLRB 22,
fn. 1
AEROVOX CORPORATION
Respondent has, since April 10, 1967, refused to
bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
bargaining representative of its employees in the
appropriate unit, and that, by such refusal, the
Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in,
unfair labor practices 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 the Respondent set forth in
section III, above, occurring in connection with its
operations described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, 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.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found the Respondent has engaged 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.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Aerovox Corporation of Myrtle Beach, South
Carolina, is an Employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local Union No. 382, International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All maintenance employees including setup
men and janitors employed at the Employer's Myrtle
Beach, South Carolina, plant, excluding production
employees, office clerical employees, professional
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act.
4. Since February 24, 1967, the above-named
labor organization has been the exclusive
representative of all employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the
Act.
5. By refusing on or about April 10, 1967, and at
all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the
above-named labor organization as the exclusive
bargaining representative of all the employees of
Respondent in the appropriate unit, Respondent has
5In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a
United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the
625
engaged in , and is engaging in, unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain,
Respondent has interfered with , restrained, and
coerced , and is interfering with , restraining, and
coercing , employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act, and has
thereby engaged in , and is 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
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
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Aerovox Corporation of Myrtle Beach, South
Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment with Local Union No. 382, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, as
the exclusive bargaining representative of its
employees in the following appropriate unit:
All maintenance employees including setup
men and janitors employed at the Employer's
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, plant, excluding
production employees, office clerical employees
professional employees, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the rights
guaranteed to them by 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
understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its Myrtle Beach, South Carolina,
place of business, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix."s Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 11, after being duly signed by Respondent's
representative, shall be posted by Respondent
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.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
words "a Decision and Order" the words "a Decree of the United
States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order."
626 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 11, in
writing, within 10 days from- the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National
Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the
policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended , we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively
with Local Union No. 382, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,
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 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
representative of all employees, in the
bargaining unit described below with respect to
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employment and, if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement.
The bargaining unit is:
All maintenance employees including
setup men and janitors employed at the
Employer's Myrtle Beach, South Carolina,
plant, excluding production employees,
office clerical employees, professional
employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
AEROVOX CORPORATION
OF MYRTLE BEACH,
SOUTH CAROLINA
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days. from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions, they may
communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 1624 Wachovia Building, 301 N.* Main St.,
Winston-Salem, North ' Carolina 27101, Telephone
723-2911.