Ansari Abrasives Mfg. Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 19, 1979

246 N.L.R.B. 479 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

ANSARI ABRASIVES MANIFACTURIN(; COMPANY
Ansari Abrasives Manufacturing Company, Inc. and
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW). Case 18-CA-6315
November 19, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JNKINS
AND PENEI.I.O
Upon a charge filed on July 3, 1979, by Interna-
tional Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW),
herein called the Union, and duly served on Ansari
Abrasives Manufacturing Company, Inc., herein
called Respondent, the General Counsel of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 18, issued a complaint on July 25,
1979, against Respondent, alleging that Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair 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, 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 com-
plaint alleges in substance that on May 25, 1979, fol-
lowing a Board election in Case 18-RC-12095, the
Union was duly certified as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of Respondent's employees
in the unit found appropriate;' and that, commencing
on or about May 29, 1979, and at all times thereafter,
Respondent has refused, and continues to date to re-
fuse, to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive bargaining representative, and to provide
the Union with information regarding employee
wages and benefits, although the Union has requested
and is requesting it to do so. On August 2, 1979, Re-
spondent filed its answer to the complaint admitting
in part, and denying in part, the allegations in the
complaint, and asserting certain affirmative defenses.
Respondent admits that it meets the Board's jurisdic-
tional standards and that the Union is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of the Act. It admits that
the Union was certified and has requested Respon-
dent to bargain with it and to supply certain informa-
l Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding.
Case 18-RC-12095, 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 Electrosystem, Inc., 166 NLRB 938 (1967), enfd. 388 F.2d 683 (4th Cir.
19681; Golden Age Beverage Co., 167 NLRB 151 (1967), enfd. 415 F.2d 26
(5th Cir. 1969); Inrerivpe Co. v. Penello, 269 F.Supp. 573 (D.C Va 1967):
Follett Corp., 164 NI.RB 378 (1967). enfd. 397 F.2d 91 (7th Cir 1968); Sec
9(d) of the NRA, as amended
tion, and that Respondent has failed to do so. Re-
spondent denies the conclusory 8(a)(5) and (I)
allegations, and alleges that the Board's failure and
refusal to afford it a fair and impartial hearing on the
alleged misconduct of the Union were improper as a
matter of law and therefore the complaint should be
dismissed. Respondent also contends that the unit al-
leged in the complaint is not a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of the Act.
On August 29, 1979, counsel for the General Coun-
sel filed directly with the Board a Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment. Subsequently, on September 6, 1979,
the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding
to the Board and a Notice To Show Cause why the
General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment
should not be granted. Respondent thereafter filed a
response to Notice To Show Cause.
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 to the complaint and its response to
the Notice To Show Cause, Respondent attacks the
Union's certification on the basis of certain preelec-
tion conduct by the Union which Respondent alleges
improperly influenced the results of the election.2
Review of the record herein reveals that in Case
18 RC-12095 the petition was filed by the Union on
October 24, 1978. On November 21, 1978, a Stipula-
tion for Certification Upon Consent Election was ap-
proved by the Regional Director and the election was
conducted on December 1, 1978. On December 8,
1978, Respondent filed timely objections to the elec-
tion, which the Regional Director overruled in their
entirety on January 26, 1979. Pursuant to timely ex-
ceptions to the Regional Director's report on objec-
tions, on May 25, 1979, the Board issued a Decision
and Certification of Representative (not published in
volumes of Board Decisions), in which it adopted the
Regional Director's findings and recommendations
and certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the employees in the appropriate
unit.'
2 More particularly Respondent alleges. inter alaa, that supervisory em-
ployees initiated union activity and participated in the Union's organization-
al campaign and that union agents made mlsrepresentatlons and threats
affecting the results of the election
I In its response to the Notice To Show Cause, Respondent has requested
that this case he referred to the Regional Director for a heanng. In overrul-
ing Respondent's objections in Case 18 RC 12095, the Bard necessarily
found that there were no issues of fact or law warranting a hearing
246 NLRB No. 71
479
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 relitigate
issues which were or could have been litigated in a
prior representation proceeding. 4
All issues raised by Respondent in this proceeding
were or could have been litigated in the prior repre-
sentation proceeding, and Respondent does not offer
to adduce at a hearing any newly discovered or previ-
ously unavailable evidence, nor does it allege that any
special circumstances exist herein which would re-
quire the Board to reexamine the decision made in
the representation proceeding. We therefore find that
Respondent has not raised any issue which is prop-
erly litigable in this unfair labor practice proceeding.
Accordingly, we 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 RESPONDENT
Ansari Abrasives Manufacturing Company, Inc., a
Minnesota corporation with offices and places of
business in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, has been en-
gaged in the manufacture and distribution of grinding
wheels. During the calendar year ending December
31, 1978, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its
business operations, sold and shipped from its Brook-
lyn Center, Minnesota, facilities products, goods, and
materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly to
points outside the State of Minnesota.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Respon-
dent 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.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aero-
space and Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer-
ica (UAW), is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Representation Proceeding
1. The unit
The following employees of Respondent constitute
'See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. N.L.R.B., 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941);
Rules and Regulations of the Board, Secs. 102.67(f) and 102.6
9
(c).
a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time production
and maintenance employees at the Respondent's
4811 Dusharme Drive and 3400-48th Avenue
North, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota facilities;
excluding office clerical employees, managerial
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
2. The certification
On December 1, 1978, 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 18, designated the Union as their
representative for the purpose of collective bargaining
with Respondent. The Union was certified as the col-
lective-bargaining representative of the employees in
said unit on May 25, 1979, and the Union continues
to be such exclusive representative within the mean-
ing of Section 9(a) of the Act.
B. The Request and Refusal To Bargain
Commencing on or about May 29, 1979, and at all
times thereafter, the Union has requested Respondent
to bargain collectively with it as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of all the employees in
the above-described unit and to provide certain infor-
mation. Commencing on or about May 29, 1979, and
continuing at all times thereafter to date, Respondent
has refused, and continues to refuse, to recognize and
bargain with the Union as the exclusive representa-
tive for collective bargaining of all employees in said
unit, and has refused to provide the Union with the
rates and the job classifications of unit employees; the
annual wages received by unit employees during
1978-79; the Employer's contributions per hour to
unit employee health and life insurance policies; fi-
nancial information concerning any pension or profit-
sharing plans covering unit employees; and the length
of service, sex, and age of unit employees. The infor-
mation requested was and is relevant to the Union's
duty and function of acting as the collective-bargain-
ing representative of the employees in the aforemen-
tioned appropriate unit.5
Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since
May 29, 1979, and at all times thereafter, refused to
bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the appropriate
unit, and refused to furnish the information requested
by the Union, and that, by such refusal, Respondent
See Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 239 NLRB 106 (1978); Borden,
Inc., Borden (hemical Division, 235 NLRB 982 (1978).
480
ANSARI ABRASIVES MANUFACTURING COMPANY
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 FFECT OF IHIE UNFAIR L.AB()R PRA(I('IIS
UPON ()ONMMR(T
The activities of 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 com-
merce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDI)Y
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
and provide the Union with the information re-
quested.
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 commences
to bargain in good faith with the Union as the recog-
nized bargaining representative in the appropriate
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 (1964): 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:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Ansari Abrasives Manufacturing Company,
Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Union, United Automobile, Aero-
space and Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer-
ica (UAW), is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All full-time and regular part-time production
and maintenance employees at the Respondent's 4811
Dusharme Drive and 3400 48th Avenue North,
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, facilities; excluding of-
fice clerical employees, managerial employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, consti-
tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act.
4. Since May 25, 1979. the above-named labor or-
ganization has been and now is the certified and ex-
clusive representative of all employees in the afore-
said appropriate unit for the purpose of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the
Act.
5. By refusing on or about May 29, 1979, and at all
times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the
above-named labor organization as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of all the employees of Re-
spondent in the appropriate unit, Respondent has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
6. By its failure and refusal to provide the Union
with the rates and the job classifications of unit em-
ployees: the annual wages received by unit employees
during 1978-79; the Employer's contributions per
hour to unit employee health and life insurance poli-
cies: financial information concerning any pension or
profit-sharing plans covering unit employees; and the
length of service, sex, and age of unit employees, Re-
spondent has engaged in and is continuing to engage
in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5)
and (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.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Ansari Abrasives Manufacturing Company, Inc.,
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, 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 International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Im-
plement Workers of America (UAW), as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of its employees in the
following appropriate unit:
All full-time and regular part-time production
and maintenance employees at the Respondent's
4811 Dusharme Drive and 3400 48th Avenue
481
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RLATIONS BARD
North, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota facilities;
excluding office clerical employees, managerial
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
(b) Failing and refusing to provide the Union with
the rates and the job classifications of unit employees:
the annual wages received by unit employees during
1978-79; the Employer's contributions per hour to
unit employee health and life insurance policies: fi-
nancial information concerning any pension or profit-
sharing plans covering unit employees; and the length
of service, sex, and age of unit employees.
(c) 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 understand-
ing is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement.
(h) Upon request, provide the Union with the in-
formation requested above.
(c) Post at its places of business in Brooklyn C('en-
ter, Minnesota, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 6 Copies of said notice, on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 18, after
being duly signed by Respondent's representative,
shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecu-
tive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon-
dent to insure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 18, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
I 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
No1 l(L1 To EMPI(o)Yi:LS
PosTIlD BY ORDI)IR OF IiI
NAII()NAI. LABOR REI.AII()NS BOARI)
An Agency of the United States Government
W. WILL. NOI refuse to bargain collectively
concerning rates of pay. wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment with Inter-
national Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer-
ica (UAW). as the exclusive representative of the
employees in the bargaining unit described be-
low.
WlI: .II NO i refuse to provide the Union with
the inf'ormation and data it requested pertaining
to rates of' pay, benefits, and length of' service,
sex, and age of' unit employees.
Wi: 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.
Wl wn111.. upon request, bargain with the
ahove-named Union, as the exclusive representa-
tive of all employees in the bargaining unit de-
scribed below, with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment, and, ift' an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement. The bargaining unit is:
All full-time and regular part-time production
and maintenance employees at the Employer's
4811 Dusharme Drive and 3400-48th Avenue
North, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota facilities;
excluding office clerical employees, managerial
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
WE WIlL., upon request, provide the Union
with the rates and the job classifications of unit
employees; the annual wages received by unit
employees during 1978-79; the Employer's con-
tributions per hour to unit employee health and
life insurance policies; financial information con-
cerning any pension or profit-sharing plans cov-
ering unit employees; and the length of service,
sex, and age of unit employees.
ANSARI ABRASIVES MANUFACTURING COM-
PANY, INC.
482