Circle A & W Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 12, 1979

243 N.L.R.B. 434 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

I)ti('ISIONS OF NAlIONAI. IABOR RIl .AI()NS BO()ARI)
Circle A & W Products (ompany and Warehouse-
men's Union Local No. 206, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemenle &
Helpers of America. ('ase 36 (A 3380
July 12, 1979
D[ECISION AN[) ORI)ER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING ANI) M slMliRS J NKINS
AND) PENI.I .1(
Upon a charge filed on December 14. 1978. by
Warehousemen's Union ocal No. 206, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men & Helpers of America, herein called the Union,
and duly served on Circle A & W Products Company
herein called Respondent, the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Di-
rector for Region 19. issued a complaint' on January
24, 1979, and on February 5, 1979, issued an Erratum
to the complaint against Respondent, alleging that
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in un-
fair 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, itas
amended. Copies of the charge, complaint, and notice
of hearing before an administrative law judge and er-
ratum to the complaint, were duly served on the par-
ties to this proceeding.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the com-
plaint alleges in substance that on September 6, 1978,
following a Board election in Case 36 RC-4046, the
Union was duly certified as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of Respondent's employ-
eees in the unit found appropriate: 2 and that. com-
I Answering par. 2 of the complaint, Respondent denies the allegation that
it is a California corporation and avers that it was ,old in late 1978 and that
since then it has operated as a subsidiary of another unnamed) corporation.
Respondent admits, however, the remainder of par. 2. -Ihereby Respondent
admits that it is engaged in the manufacture and distribution of electrical
equipment in several States of the United States, including the State of Ore-
gon, and that during the past year it has sold and shipped from its Portland.
Oregon, facility to points outside the State of Oregon products valued In
excess of $50,000. Answering par. 3 of the complaint, Respondent denies the
conclusionary allegation that it was engaged in commerce but doe, so based
solely on its answer to par. 2.
In its opposition. Respondent reiterates its assertion that it s incorrectlx
identified in the complaint" but fails and declines to furnish any further
details or infoirmation concerning such asserted misidentificalion. In ains
event, we note that Respondent has admitted sufficient evidentiary lacts to
establish the allegation of par. 3 of the complaint that it is an employer
within the meaning of Sec. 2(2) of the Act engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Sec. 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and we so find. We also note that the
Board's Order herein shall issue against the named Respondent, including its
successors and assigns, if an).
2Official notice is taken of, the record in the representation proceeding.
Case 36 RC 4046, as the term "record" is defined in Secs 102.68 and
102.69(g) of the Board's Rules and Regilations. Series 8, ais mended. See
LTV Eleciro tem.s, In(., 166 NI RB 938 (19671. enlfd 388 .2d 683 (4th Cir.
mencing on or about November 15, 1978, and at all
times thereafter, and particularly by letter dated No-
vember 15, 1978, Respondent has refused, and con-
tinues to date to refuse, to bargain collectively with
the Ulnion as the exclusive bargaining representative,
although the Union has requested and is requesting it
to do so. On February 26. 1979. Respondent filed its
answer to the complaint admitting in part, and deny-
ing in part. the allegations in the complaint.
Respondent asserted four affirmative detenses in its
answers in support of its general defense that the cer-
tification was invalid: (I) The election was invalid be-
cause of the existence of a valid contract bar: (2) Re-
spondent has a valid continuing collective-bargaining
agreement with another labor organization: (3) dis-
criminatory alleged withdrawal of representation by
another labor organization because Respondent's em-
ployees exercised Section 7 rights precludes the possi-
bility of Respondent having violated the Act; (4) Re-
spondent was prejudiced by the Board's refusal to
investigate charges filed against the labor organiza-
tion that formerly represented its employees and by
the dismissal of the charges before Respondent was
given an opportunity to present evidence.
On March 8, 1979. counsel for the General Counsel
filed directly with the Board a Motion for Summary
Judgment, with appendixes attached. The General
Counsel maintains that each of Respondent's asserted
four affirmative defenses in support of its general de-
fense that the certification was invalid was fully con-
sidered by the Regional l)irector and the Board in
Case 36 RC 4046, and that there are no issues of fact
or law requiring a hearing in this proceeding. Subse-
quently, on March 19, 1979, the Board issued an or-
der 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 memorandum
in opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment.
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 opposition, Respondent concedes that it has
refused to bargain with the Union but urges that its
refusal is justified as a matter of law. Respondent
1968): (;olden A4g Betverage (r . 167 NI.RB 151 (19671. enld. 415 1-.2d 26
(5th (Cir. 1969): IrntrOpc (Co, s PInllo, 269 I Supp 573 I).(D ' Va. 1967):
,to/lll ( ,rp. 164 NI.RB 378 (1967). enid. 397 :.2d 91 (7th (ir. 1968): Sec.
9(d) Al the NI.RA. as amended
243 NLRB No. 80
434
CIRCI.L A & W PRODUCIS COMPANY
maintains that the election and certification are in-
valid because of a presence of a valid contract bar. as
alleged in its four affirmative defenses. Accordingiy, it
is Respondent's view that it is not required to bargain
with the certified Union.
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 reliti-
gate issues which were or could have been litigated in
a prior representation proceeding.3
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 labor practice proceeding. Ac-
cordingly, we grant the Motion for Summary Judg-
ment.
On the basis of the entire record. the Board makes
the following:
FINDINGS O FA('I'
1. THE BUSIFNESS OF RSPONDLNI'
Respondent 4 is engaged in the manufacture and
distribution of electrical equipment in several States
of the United States, including the State of Oregon.
During the past year Respondent sold and shipped
from its Portland, Oregon, facility to points outside
the State of Oregon products valued in excess of
$50,000.
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
Warehousemen's Union Local No. 206, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen & Helpers of America, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
ISee Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. N.LRRB. 313 U.S 146, 162 (1941);
Rules and Regulations of the Board, Secs. 102.67(f) and 102.69(c).
4 As noted in fn. I of this Decision.
III. 1IE UNFAIR L.ABOR PRA('II('ES
A. The Representation Proceeding
I. The unit
The following employees of Respondent constitute
a unit appropriate f)r collective-bargaining purposes
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All employees employed by Circle A & W Prod-
ucts Company at its Portland, Oregon, facilit,
but excluding office clerical employees, sales-
persons, professional employees, independent
contractors, guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
2. The certification
On August 4. 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 19, 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 September 6, 1978. and the Union con-
tinues to be such exclusive representative within the
meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
B. The Request 7o Bargain an(d Resvpontnt ' Re/i.sal
Commencing on or about November 2 and 29,
1978, and at all times thereafter. the Union has re-
quested Respondent to bargain collectively with it as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
all the employees in the above-described unit. Com-
mencing on or about November 15, 1978, and con-
tinuing at all times thereafter to date, Respondent has
refused, and continues to refuse, to recognize and bar-
gain with the Union as the exclusive representative
for collective bargaining of all employees in said unit.
Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since
November 15, 1978, and at all times thereafter, re-
fused to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the ap-
propriate unit, and that, by such refusal, Respondent
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 EFFE('T OF THE UNFAIR I.ABOR PRACI('ES
UPON COMMER(CE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with its operations
described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate,
435
I)It('ISI()NS OF NAIO()NAI. IABOR RIL.ATI()NS BOARI)
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. inE RFMF[I)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 (I) 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.
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 Pouhy C(ompatln, Inc., 136 NL RB
785 (1962): Commerce Companty dh/a Lamar Hotel,
140 NLRB 226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (5th
Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817; Burnelt (Con-
struction Companv, 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:
CONC(IUSIONS OF LAW
1. Circle A & W Products Company is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Warehousemen's Union Local No. 206, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen & Helpers of America, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All employees employed by Circle A & W Prod-
ucts Company at its Portland, Oregon, facility, but
excluding office clerical employees, salespersons, pro-
fessional employees, independent contractors, guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. Since September 6, 1978, the above-named la-
bor 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 November 15, 1978,
and at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively
with the above-named labor organization as the ex-
elusive bargaining representative of all the employees
oft Respondent in the appropriate unit, Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices 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. employees
in the exercise of' the rights guaranteed them in Sec-
tion 7 of' the Act, and thereby has 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 aflecting 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. (Cir-
cle A & W Products Company, Portland, Oregon, its
officers, agents. successors, 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 Warehousemen's Union
Local No. 206, International Brotherhood of' Team-
sters. Chautfiurs. Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, as the exclusive bargaining representative of
its employees in the following appropriate unit:
All employees employed by C'ircle A & W Prod-
ucts Company at its Portland, Oregon, facility,
but excluding office clerical employees, sales-
persons. professional employees, independent
contractors, 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 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.
(b) Post at its Portland, Oregon, facility copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of
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 abor 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."
436
('IR( I I A & ' PRO()I)t;( S (O()MPANY
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 19. after being duly signed bh Respon-
dent's representative, shall be posted by Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, and he maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu-
ous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said no-
tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19. in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order.
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
Not l( To EPI.OYIitS
PosTIIt) BY ORD)IR ()1 1t
NAIIONAL. LABOR Ri AII()NS BOARI)
An Agency of the United States Government
WI: WILL NO] refuse to bargain collectively
concerning rates of pay. wages, hours. and other
terms and conditions of employment with Ware-
housemen's Union l.ocal No. 206. International
Brotherhood of leamsters, (haufleurs Ware-
housemen & Helpers of America. as the exclu-
sive representative of the employees in the bar-
gaining unit described below.
Wi \111 NOi I in anll like or related mancer
intertcre with, restrain or coerce our elployees
in the exercise o the rights guaranteed them hb
Section 7 of' the Act.
Wi wit . upon request. bargain with the
above-natmed ion, as the exclusivc represenla-
tive of all emplosees in the hargaining lnit de-
scribed helow, with respect to rates of' pa,
wages, hours, and othier terms and condilions of)
employment, Iand. if' an uLLndcrsta ding is
reached. embod\ such understanding in a signed
agreement. TIhe bargaining unit is:
All employees employed hb Circle A & W Prod-
ucts C(ompany at its Portlanid ()regon. l'acilit,
bhut excluding office clerical emplo:ees. sales-
persons. prolessional emplo ees independent
contractors, guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
CIR I A & W 'R(I)I ( Is (' ()MIPAN
437