Antelope Valley Bus Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 31, 2000

331 N.L.R.B. 171 (N.L.R.B. 2000)

331 NLRB No. 171
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.
Antelope Valley Bus Company, Inc. and Chauffeurs,
Sales Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers, Lo-
cal 572, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, AFL–CIO. Case 31–CA–24533
August 31, 2000
DECISION AND ORDER
BY TRUESDALE AND LIEBAMAN AND HURTGEN
Pursuant to a charge filed on May 18, 2000,1 the Gen-
eral Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board is-
sued a complaint on June 29, 2000, alleging that the Re-
spondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act by refusing to bargain follow-
ing the Union’s certification in Case 31–RC–7776. (Of-
ficial notice is taken of the “record” in the representation
proceeding as defined in the Board’s Rules and Regula-
tions, Secs. 102.68 and 102.69(g); Frontier Hotel, 265
NLRB 343 (1982).) The Respondent filed an answer
admitting in part and denying in part the allegations in
the complaint and asserting affirmative defenses.
On July 31, 2000, the Ge neral Counsel filed a Motion
for Summary Judgment. On August 3, 2000, 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 alleged irregularities in the mail ballot process 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

1 Although the Respondent admits that it received a copy of the
charge, it denies the complaint allegat ion that the charge was filed on
May 18, 2000. The General Counsel has attached as an exhibit to his
Motion for Summary Judgment a copy of the charge, and it clearly
shows that it was filed on May 18, 2000. In its response to the Notice
to Show Cause, the Respondent states that it “stipulates that the list of
exhibits provided by Counsel for the General Counsel attendant to its
motion accurately reflects part of the record.” Accordingly, we find
that the Respondent’s denial raises no material issue of fact warranting
a hearing.
Glass Co. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941). Accord-
ingly, we grant the Motion for Summary Judgment.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times the Respondent, a California cor-
poration, with an office and place of business in Sylmar,
California, has been engaged in the provision of trans-
portation services. During the 12-month period preced-
ing the issuance of the complaint, the Respondent, in
conducting its business operations described above, de-
rived gross revenues in excess of $250,000 and received
revenues in excess of $50,000 from person[s] who meet a
Board direct jurisdictional standard. We find that the
Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 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 mail-ballot election held September 17,
1999 to October 13, 1999, the Union was certified on
April 17, 2000, as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the following appro-
priate unit:

Included: All full time and regular part-time
drivers employed by the employer at its facilities lo-
cated at 5733 Sheila Street, Commerce, CA 90040,
948 Lambert Street, Oxnard, CA 93030, and 12776
Foothill Boulevard, Sylmar, CA 91342.
Excluded: All other employees, mechanics, bus
washers, office clerical employees, professional em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act.

The Union continues to be the exclusive representative un-
der Section 9(a) of the Act.
B. Refusal to Bargain
Since April 26, 2000, the Union has requested the Re-
spondent to bargain, and since May 8, 2000, the Respon-
dent has refused.2 We find that this refusal constitutes an
unlawful refusal to bargain in violation of Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act.

2 Although the complaint does not specifically allege that the Union
requested bargaining, the General Counsel has attached as an exhibit to
his Motion for Summary Judgment a copy of an April 26, 2000 letter,
sent by the Union to t he Respondent, in which the Union requested the
Respondent to meet and negotiate with it. As stated in fn. 1, above, the
Respondent stipulates that this exhibit is authentic. Further, in its May
8, 2000 letter refusing to bargain, the Respondent acknowledged
receiving the Union’s April 26, 2000 letter. Inasmuch as it is undis-
puted that the Union requested bargaining, we find the complaint’s
failure to contain a specific allegation to that effect raises no material
issue of fact warranting a hearing.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By refusing on and after May 8, 2000, to bargain with
the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of employees in the appropriate unit, the Re-
spondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
and Section 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.
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, Antelope Valley Bus Company, Inc., Syl-
mar, California, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain with Chauffeurs, Sales Driv-
ers, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 572, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the employees in the bar-
gaining unit.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing emp loyees 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:

Included: All full time and regular part-time
drivers employed by the employer at its facilities lo-
cated at 5733 Sheila Street, Commerce, CA 90040,
948 Lambert Street, Oxnard, CA 93030, and 12776
Foothill Boulevard, Sylmar, CA 91342.
Excluded: All other employees, mechanics, bus
washers, office clerical employees, professional em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act.

(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facilities in Commerce, Oxnard, and Sylmar, Califor-
nia, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”3
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 31 after being signed by the Respon-
dent’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 no-
tices are not altered, 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 facility involved in these proceedings, the Re-
spondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a
copy of the notice to all current employees and former
employees employed by the Respondent at any time
since May 8, 2000.
(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. August 31, 2000

John C. Truesdale, Chairman

Wilma B. Liebman, Member

Peter J. Hurtgen, 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 Chauffeurs, Sales
Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 572, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO as the exclu-
sive representative of the employees in the bargaining
unit.

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.”
ANTELOPE VALLEY BUS CO. 3
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:

Included: All full time and regular part-time
drivers employed by us at our facilities located at
5733 Sheila Street, Commerce, CA 90040, 948
Lambert Street, Oxnard, CA 93030, and 12776
Foothill Boulevard, Sylmar, CA 91342.
Excluded: All other employees, mechanics, bus
washers, office clerical employees, professional em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
ANTELOPE VALLEY BUS COMPANY, INC.