Castle Hills Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 2, 1968

173 N.L.R.B. 1049 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

HARTZELL PROPELLER FAN CO. 1049
Hartzell Propeller Fan Co . (Division of Castle Hills
Corp.) and International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America , Teamsters Union Local 957.
Case 8-CA-5093
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
December 2, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND ZAGORIA
Upon a charge filed by International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, Teamsters Union Local 957, herein called
the Union, the General Counsel for the National
Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for
Region 8, issued a complaint dated August 20, 1968,
against Hartzell Propeller Fan Company (Division of
Castle Hills Corp.), herein called Respondent, alleging
that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging
in unfair labor practices 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
a Trial Examiner, were duly served upon the
Respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the
complaint alleges that on June 12, 1968, the Board
certified the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the Respondent's
employees in an appropriate unit,' and that on or
about July 5 and July 20, 1968, the Respondent has
refused, and continues to refuse, to recognize and
bargain with the Union, although the Union has
requested it to do so. On August 28, 1968, the
Respondent filed its answer to the complaint, in
which it admitted in part and denied in part the
allegations contained therein, and requested that the
complaint be dismissed.
On September 6, 1968, the General Counsel filed
with the Board a Motion for Summary Judgment, and
a memorandum in support thereof, submitting that
the Respondent's answer raises no issue of fact or law,
and moving that the Board enter judgment against
Respondent on the pleadings. Thereafter, on Septem-
ber 9, 1968, the Board, having duly considered the
matter, issued an Order Transferring Proceeding to
the Board and Notice to Show Cause why the General
Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment should not
be granted. On September 12, 1968, the Respondent
filed an Opposition to Motion for Summary Judg-
ment, and on October 2, 1968, the Respondent filed
an Opposition with Authorities to Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment.
1 Case 8-RC-6914 (not printed in NLRB volumes).
173 NLRB No. 163
RULING ON THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
In its Answer to the complaint, and its Opposition to
Motion for Summary Judgment, Respondent contends,
inter alia, that it is entitled to a hearing to insure full
litigation of the facts. For the reasons stated below,
we find this contention to be without merit.
The record establishes that pursuant to a Stipula-
tion for Certification upon Consent Election ap-
proved by the Regional Director for Region 8 on
October 26, 1967, an election by secret ballot was
conducted on November 30, 1967, under the direc-
tion and supervision of the Regional Director, in the
unit hereinafter found appropriate.
Upon the conclusion of the balloting, the parties
were furnished with a tally of ballots, which showed
that, of approximately 152 eligible voters, 127 cast
ballots, of which 71 were for, and 54 against, the
Petitioner, with 2 challenged ballots, a number
insufficient to affect the results of the election. On
December 7, 1967, the Employer filed timely objec-
tions to conduct affecting the results of the election.
'Thereafter, a hearing was conducted before a Hearing
Officer on the issues raised by the objections,
pertaining to (1) whether the Union informed
employees that if they did not pay a $10 initiation
fee prior to the election, they would be required to
pay a $50 or $100 initiation fee, (2) whether
employees who were active on behalf of the Union
made threats and misrepresentations to employees,
and (3) whether the Union threatened employees
with an illegal secondary, boy&tt. The Hearing
Officer, in his Report on Objections to Election dated
March 29, 1968, recommended that the objections be
overruled in their entirety, and that the Union, having
secured a majority of the valid votes cast in the
election, be certified as the collective bargaining
representative.
The Board, on June 12, 1968, issued its Decision
and Certification of Representative, in which it
adopted the Hearing Officers findings, conclusions,
and recommendations, and certified the Union as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the Employer's
employees in the unit found appropriate. On June 18,
1968, the Employer filed a motion for reconsidera-
tion of the Board's Decision and Certification of
Representative, which was denied by the Board on
July 11, 1968.
In the instant proceeding, the Respondent, in its
Answer, admits the following factual allegations: (1)
that it is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act; (2) that the Union is a labor
1050 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
organization within the meaning of the Act; (3) that
in Case 8-RC-6914, a secret ballot election was
conducted in an appropriate unit; (4) that the Union
was certified by the Board as the exclusive collective
bargaining representative in the appropriate unit; and
(5) that the Union, following its certification, request-
ed the commencement of negotiations, and that
Respondent thereafter refused to meet and bargain
with the Union. The only factual allegation denied by
the Respondent is that the Union is the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of a "majority" of
the employees in the unit in which the election was
conducted. The Respondent's answer did not raise an
affirmative defense to the complaint.
It is apparent, in the light of Respondent's answer
to the complaint, that it is seeking to relitigate in the
instant unfair labor practice proceeding the same
issues that were disposed of by the Board in its
Decision and Certification of Representative dated
June 12, 1968. In this connection, it is well-
established that, in the absence of newly discovered
or previously unavailable evidence, a respondent is
not entitled to relitigate in a Section 8(a)(5) pro-
ceeding issues which were or could have been raised in
the prior representation proceeding.2
All material issues have been previously decided by
the Board, or admitted in the Answer to the
Complaint, there are no matters requiring a hearing
before a Trial Examiner. Accordingly, the General
Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.
On the basis of the record before it, the Board makes
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Team-
sters Union Local 957, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Representation Proceedings
1. The unit
The following employees of the Respondent consti-
tute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees inclu-
ding foundry employees and trainees in the
Employer's plant at 910 South Downing Street,
Piqua, Ohio, but excluding all office clerical
employees, technical employees, professional
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
2 The certification
On November 30, 1967, a majority of the employ-
ees of the Respondent in said unit, in a secret-ballot
election conducted under the supervision of the
Regional Director for Region 8, designated the Union
as their representative for the purpose of collective
bargaining with the Respondent. On June 12, 1968,
the Board certified the Union as the collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in said
unit, and the Union continues to be such representa-
tive.
I THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
The Respondent is, and has been at all times
material herein, a corporation duly organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Ohio, with its
principal office and place of business located in Piqua,
Ohio, where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale
of fans and blowers. The Respondent, in the course
and conduct of its business, annually ships finished
products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to
points located outside the State of Ohio.
The Respondent admits, and we find that it is, and
has been at all tinges 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
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.'
2 Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company v . N.L.R.B., 313 U.S. 146.
3 We note that the Board asserted jurisdiction over the Respondent-
Employer in the underlying representation proceeding
B The Request to Bargain
and the Respondent's Refusal
On or about July 1 and again on or about July 17,
1968, and continuing to date, the Union has request-
ed, and is requesting, the Respondent to bargain
collectively with it with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours, and working conditions of the employ-
ees in the appropriate unit. The Respondent admit-
tedly declined, on July 5 and July 20, 1968, and has
continued to decline, to bargain with the Union as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all
employees in said unit.
Accordingly, we find that the Union was duly
certified by the Board as the collective-bargaining
representative of the employees of the Respondent in
the appropriate unit described above in the Board's
certification, and that the Union, at all times since
June 12, 1968, has been and now is the exclusive
bargaining representative of all the employees in the
aforesaid unit, within the meaning of Section 9(a) of
HARTZELL PROPELLER FAN CO. 1051
the Act. We further find that Respondent has, since
July 5 and July 20, 1968, refused to bargain
collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining
representative of its employees in the appropriate
unit, and that, by such refusal, the Respondent has
engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The acts of the Respondent set forth in Section III,
above, occurring in connection with its operations as
described in Section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation 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 REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning 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 represen-
tative of all employees in the appropriate unit, and, if
an understanding is reached, embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement.
In order to insure that the employees in the
appropriate unit will be accorded the services of their
selected bargaining agent for the period provided by
law, we shall construe the initial year of certification
as beginning on the date the Respondent commences
to bargain in good faith with the Union as the
recognized bargaining representative in the appropri-
ate unit. See: Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., 136
NLRB 785; Commerce Company d/b/a Lamar Hotel,
140 NLRB 226, 229, enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (C.A. 5),
cert. denied 379 U.S. 817; Burnett Construction
Company, 149 NLRB 1419, 1421, enfd. 350 F.2d 57
(C.A. 10).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Hartzell Propeller Fan Company (Division of
Castle Hills Corp.) is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
2. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Team-
sters Union Local 957, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees
including foundry employees and trainees in the
Employer's plant at 910 South Downing Street,
Piqua, Ohio, but excluding all office clerical employ-
ees, technical employees, professional 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 June 12, 1968, the above-named labor
organization has been and now is the certified and
exclusive representative of all employees in the
aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of
the Act.
5. By refusing on or about July 5 and July 20,
1968, and at all times thereafter, to bargain collec-
tively with the above-named labor organization as the
exclusive bargaining representative of all the employ-
ees of the Respondent in the aforesaid appropriate
unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respondent
has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and is
interfering with, restraining, and coercing, its employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in
Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby engaged in, and
is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(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
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Hartzell Propeller Fan Company (Division of Castle
Hills Corp.), Piqua, Ohio, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning
rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment, with International Bro-
therhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, Teamsters Union Local 957,
as the exclusive bargaining representative of its
employees in the following appropriate unit:
All production and maintenance employees inclu-
ding foundry employees and trainees in the
Employer's plant at 910 South Downing Street,
Piqua, Ohio, but excluding all office clerical
employees, technical employees, professional
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the
Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
1052 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
(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 under-
standing is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement.
(b) Post at its Piqua, Ohio, place of business,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."4
Copies of said Notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 8, after being duly
signed by the Respondent's representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify said Regional Director for Region 8, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to
comply herewith.
4 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United
States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order," the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Decision and Order of the National
Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the
policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, we hereby notify our employees that.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Teamsters Union Local 957, as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the bargaining
unit described below.
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 upon request bargain with the above
named Union, as the exclusive representative of all
our employees in the bargaining unit described
below, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours,
and other terms and conditions of employment,
and if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement.
The bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees
including foundry employees and trainees in the
Employer's plant at 910 South Downing Street,
Piqua, Ohio, but excluding all office employees,
technical employees, professional employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
HARTZELL PROPELLER FAN
CO (DIVISION OF
CASTLE HILLS CORP.)
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting, and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this
Notice or compliance with its provisions, they may
communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 1695 Federal Office Building, 1240 East 9th
Street, Cleveland, Ohio, 44199 Telephone
216-522-3715.