A.M.A. Leasing, Ltd.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 18, 1987

283 N.L.R.B. 1017 (N.L.R.B. 1987)

A.M.A. LEASING
A.M.A. Leasing, Ltd. and Beef Boners & Sausage
Makers Union Local 100-A, United Food &
Commercial Workers International Union,
AFL-CIO, CLC and- Production Workers
Union of Chicago and Vicinity, Local 707,
Party to the Contract
Production Workers Union of Chicago and Vicinity,
Local 707 and Beef Boners & Sausage Makers
Union Local 100-A, United Food & Commer-
cial Workers International Union, AFL-
CIO,CLC and A.M.A. -Leasing Ltd., Party to
the Contract. Cases 13-CA-24614, 13-CA-
24734, 13-CB-10794, and 13-CB-10840
18 May 1987
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JOHANSEN, BABSON, AND
STEPHENS
On 8 August 1986 Administrative Law Judge
Robert A. Giannasi issued the attached decision.
The Respondent Union filed exceptions and a sup-
porting brief, and the General Counsel filed limited
exceptions.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and brief and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings,' findings,2
and conclusions3 and to adopt the recommended
Order as modified.4
i The Respondent Union's request that the Board reverse the judge
and-grant the Respondent Employer's motion that the General Counsel
submit exculpatory evidence to the judge is denied.,See Nueva Engineer-
ing, 269 NLRB 999, 1005 (1984), enfd. 761 F.2d 961, 969 (4th Cir. 1985).
3 The Respondent Union has excepted to some of the judge's credibil-
ity findings The Board's established policy is not to overrule an adminis-
trative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance
of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Stand-
ard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir.1951).
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for re-
versing the findings.
3 In par 4 of his Conclusions of Law, the judge inadvertently stated
that the Respondent Union violated Sec 8(a)(2) of the Act, rather than
Sec. 8(b)(2). We correct the error.
4 In par. B,1(a) of his recommended Order, the judge recommended
that the Respondent Union be ordered to cease accepting recognition
from and executing a collective-bargaining agreement with the Respond-
ent Employer when the Respondent Employer does not employ a repre-
sentative number of its ultimate complement of unit employees and
before it is engaged in normal business operations. In her exceptions, the
General Counsel contends that the Respondent Union should be directed
to cease and desist from accepting recognition as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of any employees of the Respondent Employer
unless and until it has been so certified by the Board . We agree and shall
modify the Order accordingly
The General Counsel also contends that the judge erred in failing to
order the Respondent Union to disclaim recognition as the exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representative of any employees of the Respondent
Employer unless and until it has been so certified by the Board. We shall
modify the fudge's recommended Order to include such affirmative relief
and shall issue a new notice to members.
1017
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
'recommended Order of the administrative law
judge as modified below and orders that the Re-
spondent Employer, A.M.A, Leasing Ltd., Bensen-
ville and Chicago, Illinois, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, and the Respondent Union,
Production Workers Union of Chicago and Vicini-
ty, Local 707, Chicago, Illinois, its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall, take the action set forth
in the Order as modified.`
1. Substitute the following for paragraph B,1(a).
"(a) Accepting recognition as the exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representative of any employees
of the Respondent Employer unless and until it has
been so certified by the National Labor Relations
Board." -
2. Insert the following as paragraph B,2(b) and
reletter the subsequent paragraphs.
"(b) Disclaim recognition as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of any employees of
the Respondent Employer unless and until it has
been so certified by the National Labor Relations
Board."3. Substitute the attached Appendix B ' for
that of the administrative law judge.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To MEMBERS
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 violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to. post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT accept recognition as the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of any em-
ployees of A.M.A. Leasing, !Ltd. unless and until
we have been so certified by the National Labor
Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT give effect to the ]L5 August 1984
collective-bargaining agreement between A.M.A.
Leasing, Ltd. and us or to any extension, renewal,
or modification thereof.
WE WILL NOT in any like-or related manner re-
strain or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section '7 of the Act except to
the extent that such rights may be affected by an
agreement,' as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act.
WE WILL, jointly and severally with A.M.A.
Leasing, Ltd., reimburse with interest all present
and former employees of A.M.A. for all initiation
fees and dues paid by them or withheld from them
pursuant to the union-security clause and the dues-
283 NLRB No. 152
1018 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
checkoff clause of the 15, August 1984 contract.
However, reimbursement will not extend to those
employees who voluntarily joined Local 707 before
15-August 1984.
WE WILL disclaim recognition as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of any employ-
ees of A.M.A. Leasing, Ltd. unless and until we
have been so certified, by the National Labor Rela-
tions Board.
PRODUCTION ' WORKERS UNION OF
CHICAGO AND VICINITY, LOCAL 707
Felicitas Berlanga and Robert Bloch, Esqs., for the Gener-
al Counsel.
Ramon Martinez, Esq. (Naphim, Barta &Cox), of Chica-
go, Illinois, for the Respondent Employer.
Cora Vaughn, Esq., of Gary, Indiana, for the Respondent
Union.,
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT, A. GIANNASI, Administrative Law Judge.
This case was tried for 5 days in December 1985 and
January 1986 in Chicago, Illinois. The complaint alleges
that the Respondent Employer A.M.A. Leasing, Ltd.
(AMA) and Respondent Union Production Workers
Union of Chicago and Vicinity, Local 707 (Local 707,
collectively the Respondents) violated the National
Labor Relations Act. More specifically, the complaint al-
leges that AMA violated Section 8(a)(1) by preventing
employees from engaging in union activities on behalf of
Charging Party Union Beef ' Boners & Sausage Makers
Union Local 100-A, United Food & Commercial Work-
ers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC (Local 100)
and Section' 8(b)(2) and (1) by rendering aid, assistance,
and support to Local 707, ` by soliciting and distributing
Local, 707 ,authorization cards to employees, by permit-
ting Local 707 agents to use its facility to solicit authori-
zations, and by deducting dues from employee wages
and remitting them to ' Local 707 in the absence of em-
ployee authorizations: The complaint also alleges that
AMA violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) and Local 707 vio-
lated Section 8(b)(1)(A) when-'they, agreed that AMA
would recognize' Local 707 and when they 'entered into a
collective-bargaining agreement because, at those times,
Local 707 did not have the support of an uncoerced ma-
jority, of AMA employees and, alternatively, because
AMA was not engaged in normal business operations
and had not, yet employed a substantial and representa-
tive complement of employees, Because 'the parties' col-
lective-bargaining agreement contained a union-security
clause requiring union membership after a' certain date,
the complaint also alleges that the Respondents violated
Section 8(a)(3) and Section 8(b)(2)-of the Act. The Re-
spondents deny the substantive allegations of the com-
plaint. I have received briefs from all the parties and a
reply, brief from the General Counsel. I have read and
considered all the briefs.
On the entire record, including the - testimony of the
witnesses- and my observation of their demeanor while
testifying, I-make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT -
AMA, an Illinois corporation with offices in Bensen-
ville, Illinois; is engaged in,the meat processing business
at the so-called Donna Packing facility or plant at 225
North Green Street,' Chicago, Illinois. During a: repre-
sentative 1-year period; AMA has, in the course of its
business operations, performed services valued' in. excess
of $50,000 for enterprises located' outside the State of Illi-
nois and performed services valued in excess of $50,000
for enterprises located within the State of Illinois, which
are directly engaged in interstate commerce. According-
ly, I find that Respondent'AMA is an-employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Respondent Local 707 and Charging Party Local 100
are labor organizations within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
On 9 July 1984 AMA entered into an agreement with'
a wholly owned subsidiary' of Dominick'-s Finer Foods,
Inc. to provide an employee work force to break, cut,
and process meat at a facility on 225 North Green Street, ,
Chicago, Illinois, known as Donna's plant.