Centralia Container, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 15, 1986

279 N.L.R.B. 305 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

CENTRALIA CONTAINER, INC.
Centralia Container , Inc. and United Paperworkers
International Union , AFL-CIO, CLC. Case 14-
CA-18251
15 April 1986
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
DENNIS AND JOHANSEN
Upon a charge filed by the Union 2 January
1986, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board issued a complaint 16 January
1986 against the Company, the Respondent , alleg-
ing that it has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the National Labor Relations Act.
The complaint alleges that on 24 October 1985,
following a Board election in Case 14-RC-9890,
the Union was certified as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the Company's em-
ployees in the unit found appropriate. (Official
notice is taken of the "record" in the representation
proceeding as defined in the Board' s Rules and
Regulations, Secs. 102.68 and 102.69(g), amended
Sept. 9, 1981, 46 Fed.Reg. 45922 (1981); Frontier
Hotel, 265 NLRB 343 (1982).) The complaint fur-
ther alleges that since 10 December 1985 the Com-
pany has refused to bargain with the Union. On 30
January 1986 the Company filed its answer admit-
ting in part and denying in part the allegations in
the complaint.
On 10 February 1986 the General Counsel filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment. On 14 February
1986 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
Company filed a response.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
In its answer to the complaint, the Company
admits its refusal to bargain and to furnish informa-
tion that is necessary and relevant to the Union's
role as bargaining representative, but attacks the
validity of the certification on the basis of its objec-
tions to the election in the representation proceed-
ing. The General Counsel argues that all material
issues have been decided previously. We agree
with the General Counsel.
The record, including the record in Case 14-
RC-9890, reveals that an election was held 10 Oc-
tober 1984 pursuant to a Stipulated Election Agree-
ment . The tally of ballots shows that of approxi-
mately 45 eligible voters, 25 cast valid ballots for
and 20 against the Union; there were 2 nondeter-
305
minative challenged ballots. After conducting an
investigation of the Company's election objections,
the Regional Director for Region 14 issued his
report on 2 November 1984 recommending that the
objections be overruled. The Company filed excep-
tions and, on 15 April 1985, the Board directed a
hearing on alleged union threats not to represent
employees who did not support it, but adopted the
Regional Director's recommendation that the other
objections be overruled. After conducting a hear-
ing, the hearing officer, on 14 June 1985, issued his
report recommending that the Board overrule the
remaining objections. The Company filed excep-
tions. On 24 October 1985 the Board in an unpub-
lished decision adopted the hearing officer's recom-
mendations and certified the Union.'
Since about 27 November 1985, the Union has
requested the Company to bargain and to furnish it
certain information about the terms and conditions
of employment. Since about 10 December 1985, the
Company has refused to bargain or provide the re-
quested information.
It is well settled that in the absence of newly dis-
covered and 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 that were or could have been
litigated in a prior representation proceeding. See
Pittsburgh Glass Co. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 146, 162
(1941); Secs. 102.67(f) and 102.69(c) of the Board's
Rules and Regulations.
All issues raised by the Company were or could
have been litigated in the prior representation pro-
ceeding. The Company does not offer to adduce at
a hearing any newly discovered and previously un-
available evidence, nor does it allege any special
circumstances that would require the Board to re-
examine the decision made in the representation
proceeding.2 We therefore find that the Company
has not raised any issue that is properly litigable in
this unfair labor practice proceeding. Accordingly,
we grant the Motion for Summary Judgment.
On the entire record, the Board makes the fol-
lowing
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Company, an Illinois corporation, is en-
gaged in the manufacture and distribution of corru-
i On 10 December 1985 the Board issued an unpublished Order cor-
recting its 24 October 1985 decision
2 The Company contends the case should be remanded for inclusion of
evidence concerning the Company 's current employee complement, but
gives no indication of what the evidence will show or its relevance We
find no merit in the contention
279 NLRB No. 44
306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gated paper boxes and related items at its facility in
Centralia, Illinois, where it annually purchases and
receives products, goods, and materials valued in
excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the
State of Illinois. We find that the Company is an
employer engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing 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 election held 10 October 1984 the
Union was certified 24 October 1985 as the collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the employees in
the following appropriate unit:
All production and maintenance employees
and truckdrivers, including leadmen, employed
by Centralia Container, Inc. at its Centralia, Il-
linois facility; but excluding office clerical and
professional employees, guards and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
The Union continues to be the exclusive represent-
ative under Section 9(a) of the Act.
B. Refusal to Bargain
Since 27 November 1985 the Union has request-
ed the Company to bargain, and since 10 Decem-
ber 1985 the Company has refused. We find that
this refusal constitutes an unlawful refusal to bar-
gain in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By refusing on and after 10 December 1985 to
bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of employees in the ap-
propriate unit, the Company 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,
and to provide the Union, on request, information
necessary for collective bargaining, including that
specifically requested 27 November 1985.
To ensure that the employees are accorded the
services of their selected bargaining agent for the
period provided'by law, we shall construe the ini-
tial period of the certification 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).3
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that
the Respondent, Centralia Container, Inc., Centra-
lia, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain with United Paperwork-
ers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the employ-
ees in the bargaining unit.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, bargain with the Union as the ex-
clusive representative of the employees in the fol-
lowing appropriate unit on terms and conditions of
employment and, if an understanding is reached,
embody the understanding in a signed agreement,
and provide the Union, on request, information
necessary for collective bargaining, including that
specifically requested 27 November 1985:
All production and maintenance employees
and truckdrivers, including leadmen, employed
by Centralia Container, Inc. at its Centralia, Il-
linois facility; but excluding office clerical and
professional employees, guards and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
(b) Post at its facility in Centralia, Illinois, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."4
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 14, after being signed
by the Respondent's authorized representative,
shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
a The General Counsel has requested that the Order include a "visitor-
sal clause" authorizing the Board, for compliance purposes, to obtain dis-
covery from the Respondent under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
under the supervision of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing
this Order Under the circumstances of this case, we find it unnecessary
to include such a clause Accordingly, we deny the General Counsel's
request
4 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 Nation-
al 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 "
CENTRALIA CONTAINER, INC.
upon receipt 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 notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director in writing
within 20 days from the date of this Order what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply.
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 violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with United Pa-
perworkers International Union , AFL-CIO, CLC
307
as the exclusive representative of the employees in
the bargaining unit.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of
the Act.
WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Union as
the exclusive representative of the employees in the
following appropriate unit on terms and conditions
of employment and, if an understanding is reached,
embody the understanding in a signed agreement,
and WE WILL provide the Union, on request, infor-
mation necessary for collective bargaining, includ-
ing that specifically requested 27 November 1985:
All production and maintenance employees
and truckdrivers, including leadmen, employed
by us at our Centralia, Illinois facility; but ex-
cluding office clerical and professional em-
ployees, guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
CENTRALIA CONTAINER, INC.