Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Los Angeles

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 17, 1979

243 N.L.R.B. 501 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

()'OA-('OI.A BO)TI IN(; (COMPANY O lOS ANG(FI S
Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Los Angeles and
Rudy Estrada. Case 21 CA 16576
July 17, 1979
DECISION AN) ORDER
BY CHIAIRMAN FANNING(i ANI) MI MBF RS JNKINS
ANI) MtRPIIY
Upon charges duly filed, the General Counsel of
the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional
Director for Region 21, issued a complaint and notice
of hearing on June 5, 1978, against Coca-Cola Bot-
tling Company of Los Angeles. The complaint alleged
that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended. Copies of the charge and of the complaint
and notice of hearing were duly served on the parties.
On June 15, 1978, Respondent filed its answer to the
complaint denying the commission of unfir labor
practices and requesting that the complaint be dis-
missed.
Thereafter, the parties entered into a stipulation of
facts and jointly moved to transfer this proceeding
directly to the Board for findings of fact, conclusions
of law, and order. The parties waived a hearing be-
fore, and the making of findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law by, an administrative law judge and
stipulated that no oral testimony is necessary or de-
sired by any of the parties. The parties also agreed
that the original and amended charges, complaint
and notice of hearing, the answer, and the stipulation
of facts, including exhibits, constitute the entire rec-
ord in this proceeding.
On February 14, 1979, the Board issued its order
granting the motion, approving the stipulation, trans-
ferring the proceeding to the Board, and setting Feb-
ruary 28, 1979, as the date for filing briefs. Thereafter,
Respondent and the General Councel filed briefs.
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.
The Board has considered the stipulation, includ-
ing exhibits, the briefs, and the entire record in this
proceeding and hereby makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Los Angeles oper-
ates a facility located at 11536 Patton Street, Dow-
ney, C(alifornia, where it bottles and distributes soft
drink beverages. In the course and conduct of its
business the ('ompany annually purchases and re-
ceives goods and product valued in excess of $50.t0(()
from suppliers located within the State of (alifornia.
each of which, in turn, purchases these same goods
and products directly from suppliers located o1utside
the State of (alifornia.
The complaint alleges. Respondent admits. and we
find that Coca-Cola Bottling ( ompalny of I.os Ange-
les is. and has been. engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) oft the Act. We find
that it will eflectuate the purposes of the Act to asert
jurisdiction herein.
11. lit lABOR ()RiANl/ZAII()N INVO()I \ II)
The complaint alleges. Respondent admits, and we
find that Teamsters ocal Union No. 896. Brewery.
Soda and Mineral Water Bottlers of( alifornia. Inter-
national Brotherhood of eamisters. (haufeurs.
Warehousemen and Helpers of America. is a labor
organization within the meaning otf Section 2(5) of the
Act.
IIi. 11:E I NFAIR I A()R PRA( IR F
Respondent. on or about April 5. 1978. indefinitely
suspended employees Rudy Estrada allegedly for fal-
sifying another employee's timecard. Immediately
following Estrada's suspension the Union instituted
grievance proceedings pursuant to its collective-hbar-
gaining agreement with Respondent. On April 13.
1978. while the Union and Respondent were negotiat-
ing the grievance. Estrada filed a charge with the
Board alleging that his suspension was an unfair la-
bor practice. On or about April 19, 1978. Estrada, the
Union, and Respondent signed a "Settlement Agree-
ment" reinstating Estrada and converting his indefi-
nite suspension into a disciplinary layoff without pay.
The agreement provided that:
Mr. Estrada understands and agrees that this is a
full and final settlement of the dispute with re-
gard to his suspension on or about April 5. 1978,
and agrees that no further actions or claims of
any kind whatsoever will be filed in conjunction
with his suspension. Further, that an) charges
with any governmental administrative agenc.
including, but not limited to. the National labor
Relations Board, will be dropped and withdrawn
by Mr. Estrada as a condition of his reinstate-
ment and, further, that no actions of any kind
will ensue.
On May 24, 1978. Estrada filed an amended charge
with the Board alleging that Respondent had im-
243 NLRB No. 89
(I1
I)F.('ISIONS OF NAI IONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
posed an unlawful condition upon his reinstatement
and, in effect, withdrew that portion of the original
charge concerning his suspension because there was
insufficient evidence linking the suspension to any
protected activity.
The General ounsel contends that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by requiring that
Estrada withdraw any charges, including any before
the Board, arising in connection with the settled sus-
pension, citing John ('. Mandel Security Bureau. Inc.,
202 NLRB 117 (1973), and Kingwood Mining ('om-
pany, 171 NLRB 125 (1968). He also argues that it
would be inappropriate to defer to the parties' resolu-
tion of the dispute because it deprived Estrada of his
right to resort to the Board's processes.
Respondent defends Estrada's agreement to with-
draw the unfair labor practice charge and to refrain
from filing further claims concerning his suspension
on the ground that it is an integral part of a voluntary
settlement that was negotiated pursuant to the griev-
ance procedure of the parties' collective-bargaining
agreement. Respondent also argues that the Mandel
and Kingwood cases are distinguishable because the
condition of Estrada's reinstatement was not unilater-
ally imposed but was negotiated and freely agreed to
by Estrada and the Union as part of full settlement of
the grievance.
We find that Respondent did not violate Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by securing Estrada's promise not
to litigate his suspension further. The settlement
agreement was the product of negotiations during
which each of the parties made concessions. Estrada,
in return for his agreement, received a reduction in
the discipline originally assessed against him and was
allowed to return to work. Respondent, in turn, ob-
tained a final settlement of the matter without having
to engage in litigation. Furthermore, unlike the cases
cited by the General Counsel, the settlement agree-
ment is limited to the suspension that occurred on or
about April 5, 1978; it does not prohibit Estrada from
filing under labor practice charges concerning future
incidents or preclude him from engaging in protected
concerted activity. The General Counsel would have
us conclude that only settlement agreements which
do not settle are lawful. We conclude that Respon-
dent's negotiation of the settlement agreement, in-
cluding assurances that the dispute would not be liti-
gated, did not deprive Estrada of any rights under the
Act. American Postal Workers Union, AFL CIO, 240
NLRB 409 (1979); U.S. Postal Service, 234 NLRB
820 (1978). Accordingly, we shall dismiss the com-
plaint in its entirety.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that the complaint herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
I Member Jenkins does not rel) on American Pial Workers Union, in
which he dissented and which he considers distinguishable.
502