Burrows Paper Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 18, 2000

332 N.L.R.B. 82 (N.L.R.B. 2000)

BURROWS PAPER CORP. 127
Burrows Paper Corporation and PACE International
Union, Local 678, AFL–CIO.1 Cases 26–CA–19035
September 18, 2000
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN TRUESDALE AND MEMBERS FOX
AND HURTGEN
Upon a charge filed on February 18, 1999, by the
PACE International Union Local 678, AFL–CIO (the
Union), the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board issued a complaint on February 24, 1999,
alleging that the Respondent, Burrows Paper Corpora-
tion, violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by
unlawfully withdrawing recognition from the Union.
The Respondent filed a timely answer admitting in part
and denying in part the allegations of the complaint, and
asserting defenses.
On March 16, 1999, the General Counsel filed with the
Board a motion to transfer the case to the Board and a
contingent Motion for Summary Judgment. On March
17, 1999, the Board issued an order transferring the pro-
ceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why
the motion should not be granted. On April 9, 1999, the
Respondent filed, in response to the Notice to Show
Cause, an opposition to the General Counsel’s Motion
for Summary Judgment.
On September 15, 2000, the Board issued a Decision
and Order in Burrows Paper Corp., 332 NLRB 76 (Case
26–CA–18552), finding, inter alia, that the Respondent
failed to bargain in good faith with the Union. Official
notice is taken of the “record” in that proceeding as de-
fined in the Board’s Rules and Regulations, Section
102.45(b).
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
On the entire record and brief, the Board makes the
following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent, a corporation with an office and
place of business in Pickens, Mississippi, is engaged in
the manufacture of paper products. During the 12
months ending January 30, 1999, a representative period,
the Respondent, in the course and conduct of its opera-
tions, purchased and received at its Pickens facility
goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from sources
outside the State of Mississippi, and sold and shipped
from this facility goods valued in excess of $50,000 di-
rectly to points located outside the State of Mississippi.

1 On January 4, 1999, the United Paperworkers International Union,
AFL–CIO, CLC merged with the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers
International Union. Accordingly, the caption has been amended to
reflect that change.
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. Facts
In its September 15, 2000 decision in Case 26–CA–
18552, the Board found that the Respondent violated the
Act by, inter alia, failing to bargain in good faith with the
Union from and after October 15, 1997. As a remedy,
the Board ordered a 1-year extension of the Union’s cer-
tification year, running from the date the Respondent
begins to negotiate in good faith. See Mar-Jac Poultry,
136 NLRB 785 (1962); Bryant & Statton Business Insti-
tute, 321 NLRB 1007 fn. 5, 1045–1046 (1996). Before
this decision issued on February 17, 1999, the Respon-
dent received a petition signed by a majority of unit em-
ployees stating that they did not support the Union. On
February 18, 1999, the Respondent withdrew recognition
from the Union.
B. Contentions of the Parties
The General Counsel argues that the violation alleged
here grows out of the dispute that gave rise to the earlier
case, in which the Respondent was found not to have
bargained in good faith. The General Counsel contends
that the Respondent cannot rely on a petition tainted by
its previous unfair labor practices, which, the General
Counsel maintains, sufficiently undermined the Union’s
status with employees that it lost majority support. The
General Counsel also argues that the Respondent’s with-
drawal of recognition was inconsistent with the recom-
mendation of the administrative law judge in the earlier
proceeding, now adopted by the Board, that the certifica-
tion year be extended.
The Respondent contends that the Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment was premature in that it compelled the
Respondent to respond in a purely anticipatory manner,
uncertain as to which, if any, of the judge’s findings and
conclusions in Case 26–CA–18552 would be affirmed.
The Respondent maintains that its withdrawal of recogni-
tion was based on either an actual loss of majority sup-
port or a good-faith doubt as to the Union’s majority
status. The Respondent also argues that there is no evi-
dence that any of its actions caused employee disaffec-
tion with the Union and that the Respondent negotiated
in good faith with the Union from September 1998 until
it received the petition and resumed its good-faith nego-
tiations on April 6, 1999.
332 NLRB No. 16
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 128
C. Discussion
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act makes it unlawful for an
employer to refuse to bargain collectively with the repre-
sentatives of its employees. Clearly, a withdrawal of
recognition, if not otherwise justified, runs afoul of this
prohibition.
The Respondent contends that its withdrawal was justi-
fied by its receipt of a petition signed by a majority of
unit employees stating that they did not support the Un-
ion. However, the Board, in its decision of September
15, 2000, in Case 26–CA–18552, found that the Respon-
dent, in the course of the same contract negotiations,
violated Section 8(a)(5) by failing to negotiate in good
faith and by taking unilateral action on mandatory sub-
jects in derogation of the Union’s status as bargaining
representative. The Respondent also violated Section
8(a)(1) by blaming the Union for a loss of benefits. To
remedy these violations, the Board, among other things,
extended the Union’s certification for 1 year, running
from the commencement of good-faith bargaining. Here,
the Respondent has withdrawn recognition before the
extended certification year had run. Pride Refining, Inc.,
224 NLRB 1353, 1355 (1976). In the absence of unusual
circumstances, not present here, this action constituted a
challenge by the Respondent to the Union’s majority
status at a time when the Respondent was not free to
mount such a challenge. Accordingly, we grant the Gen-
eral Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment and find
that the Respondent, by withdrawing recognition from
the Union, violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.2
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in un-
fair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist
and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Burrows Paper Corporation, Pickens, Mis-
sissippi, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from

2 Member Hurtgen notes that the certification year was not extended
until the Board entered its remedy on September 15, 2000, after the
Respondent had withdrawn recognition. Accordingly, he does not
premise the violation here on an extended certification year. Rather,
Member Hurtgen emphasizes that the withdrawal occurred while there
were substantial unremedied 8(a)(5) violations. He also finds that any
disaffection from the Union was causally connected to the antecedent
unfair labor practices which constituted a general refusal to bargain.
Thus, the Respondent could not rely on such disaffection as a basis for
withdrawing recognition. Lee Lumber & Bldg. Material Corp., 322
NLRB 175 (1996), affd. in relevant part 117 F.2d 1454 (D.C. Cir.
1997).
(a) Refusing to meet and bargain in good faith with the
Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of employees in the following appropriate unit:
INCLUDED: All full-time and regularly scheduled
part-time production and maintenance employees and
truck drivers employed at Respondent’s Pickens, Mis-
sissippi facility.
EXCLUDED: All other employees including all office
clerical employees, professional employees, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(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 in good faith with the Union as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of unit
employees with respect to wages, hours, and other terms
and conditions of employment and, if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed agree-
ment.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Pickens, Mississippi, and at all other places
where notices customarily are posted, copies of the at-
tached notice marked “Appendix.”3 Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
26, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent imme-
diately on receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days
in conspicuous places including all places where notices
to employees customarily are 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 February 18, 1999.
(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 com-
ply. In the event that, during the pendency of these
proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or
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.”
BURROWS PAPER CORP. 129
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 February 18, 1999.
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.

Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protection
To choose not to engage in any of these protected
concerted activities.

WE WILL NOT take any action which interferes with
the exercise of these rights.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain in good faith with
the Union as the collective-bargaining representative of
our employees in the following unit:
INCLUDED: All full-time and regularly scheduled
part-time production and maintenance employees and
truck drivers employed at Respondent’s Pickens, Mis-
sissippi facility.
EXCLUDED: All other employees including all office
clerical employees, professional employees, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
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, on request, bargain in good faith with the
Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of our employees in the unit described above with
respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions
of employment and, if an understanding is reached, em-
body such understanding in a signed agreement.
BURROWS PAPER CORPORATION