Alois Box Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 12, 1999

328 N.L.R.B. 134 (N.L.R.B. 1999)

1
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
Alois Box Co., Inc. and Graphic Communications
Union Local 415-S, AFL–CIO. Case 13–CA–
37712
July 12, 1999
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS LIEBMAN, HURTGEN, AND BRAME
Pursuant to a charge filed on April 6, 1999, the Gen-
eral Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board is-
sued a complaint and notice of hearing on April 29,
1999, alleging that the Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by
refusing the Union’s request to bargain following the
Union’s certification in Case 13–RC–19729.1 (Official
notice is taken of the “record” in the representation pro-
ceeding as defined in the Board’s Rules and Regulations,
Secs. 102.68 and 102.69(g); Frontier Hotel, 265 NLRB
343 (1982).) The Respondent filed an answer, with af-
firmative defenses, admitting in part and denying in part
the allegations in the complaint.
On June 7, 1999, the General Counsel filed a Motion
for Summary Judgment. On June 9, 1999, the Board
issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board
and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion should not
be granted. The Respondent filed a response.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
In its answer the Respondent admits its refusal to bar-
gain, but attacks the validity of the certification on the
basis of the Board’s disposition of certain challenged
ballots in the representation proceeding.
All representation issues raised by the Respondent
were or could have been litigated in the prior representa-
tion proceeding. The Respondent does not offer to ad-
duce at a hearing any newly discovered and previously
unavailable evidence, nor does it allege any special cir-
cumstances that would require the Board to reexamine
the decision made in the representation proceeding. We
therefore find that the Respondent has not raised any
representation issue that is properly litigable in this un-
fair labor practice proceeding. See Pittsburgh Plate
Glass Co. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941). Accord-
ingly, we grant the Motion for Summary Judgment.2
On the entire record, the Board makes the following

1 326 NLRB No. 110 (1998).
2 We reject the Respondent’s contention that the complaint is ad-
ministratively insufficient. Rather, we find that the complaint meets the
requirements set out in Sec. 102.15 of the Board’s Rules and Regula-
tions.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent, a corporation,
with an office and place of business in Melrose Park,
Illinois, has been engaged in the manufacture of corru-
gated boxes.
During calendar year 1998, a representative period, the
Respondent, in conducting its business operations de-
scribed above, purchased and received at its Melrose
Park, Illinois facility goods valued in excess of $50,000
directly from points outside the State of Illinois.
We find that the Respondent is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act and that the Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Certification
Following the election held November 12, 1997, the
Union was certified on September 30, 1998, as the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of the employ-
ees in the following appropriate unit:
All full-time and regular part-time production, mainte-
nance and shipping employees employed by the Em-
ployer at its facility currently located at 2000 North
Mannheim Road, Melrose Park, Illinois 60160; but ex-
cluding all other employees, office clericals, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
The Union continues to be the exclusive representative
under Section 9(a) of the Act.
B. Refusal to Bargain
On or about November 2, 1998, the Union requested
that the Respondent recognize and bargain, and, since
November 18, 1998, the Respondent has failed and re-
fused. We find that this failure and refusal constitutes an
unlawful refusal to bargain in violation of Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By failing and refusing on and after November 18,
1999, to recognize and bargain with the Union as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of em-
ployees in the appropriate unit, the Respondent has en-
gaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall order it to cease and
desist, to bargain on request with the Union and, if an
understanding is reached, to embody the understanding
in a signed agreement.
2
To ensure that the employees are accorded the services
of their selected bargaining agent for the period provided
by the law, we shall construe the initial period of the cer-
tification as beginning the date the Respondent begins to
bargain in good faith with the Union. Mar-Jac Poultry
Co., 136 NLRB 785 (1962); Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB
226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert.
denied 379 U.S. 817 (1964); Burnett Construction Co.,
149 NLRB 1419, 1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th
Cir. 1965).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Alois Box Co., Inc., Melrose Park, Illinois,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain with Graphic Communications
Union Local 415-S, AFL–CIO as the exclusive bargain-
ing representative of the employees in the bargaining
unit.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the following appro-
priate unit on terms and conditions of employment and, if
an understanding is reached, embody the understanding
in a signed agreement:
All full-time and regular part-time production, mainte-
nance and shipping employees employed by the Em-
ployer at its facility currently located at 2000 North
Mannheim Road, Melrose Park, Illinois 60160; but ex-
cluding all other employees, office clericals, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Melrose Park, Illinois, copies of the at-
tached notice marked “Appendix.”3 Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
13 after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the
event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the
Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facil-
ity involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall

3 If 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the no-
tice to all current employees and former employees em-
ployed by the Respondent at any time since November
18, 1998.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. July 12, 1999
Wilma B. Liebman, Member
Peter J. Hurtgen, Member
J. Robert Brame III, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to
post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with Graphic Commu-
nications Union Local 415-S, AFL–CIO as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the bargaining unit.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Union and put
in writing and sign any agreement reached on terms and
conditions of employment for our employees in the bar-
gaining unit:
All full-time and regular part-time production, mainte-
nance and shipping employees employed by us at our
facility currently located at 2000 North Mannheim
Road, Melrose Park, Illinois 60160; but excluding all
other employees, office clericals, guards and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act.
ALOIS BOX CO., INC.