Collins & Aikman Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 10, 1966

160 N.L.R.B. 1750 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

1750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed in all other
respects.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT coercively question our employees about their union activities,
threaten them with reprisals for engaging in such activities, hold out any bene-
fits to employees in order to dissuade them from union activity, direct super-
visors to treat prounion employees as "outsiders," engage in surveillance or
give the impression of surveillance of union activity, or in any other manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights
under the National Labor Relations Act
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in, or activities on behalf of, Local
Union No. 149, Mail Order Retail Department Store and Warehouse Employ-
ees, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, by discriminating against employees with regard to their
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment.
° WE WILL offer Alver Bratsch immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position, and make him whole for any loss of pay
he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him.
WE WILL bargain, upon request, with the above-named Union, as the exclu-
sive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described below in
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, or other conditions of employment, and,
if an understanding is reached, embody it in a signed agreement. The bargain-
ing unit is:
All automobile service station employees of our Southtown store at Bloom-
ington, Minnesota (excluding salesmen, shipping and receiving employees,
parts department employees, office clerical employees, professional employ-
ees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act).
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming or
remaining, members of Local Union No. 149, Mail Order Retail Department Store
and Warehouse Employees, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor organization.
MONTGOMERY WARD & CO., INCORPORATED (WARDS
SOUTHTOWN RETAIL STORE),
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, 316
Federal Building, 110 South Fourth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401, Tele-
phone 334-2618.
Collins & Aikman Corporation and Textile Workers Union of
America, AFL-CIO, CLC. Case 31-CA-390. October 10, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a charge filed by Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-
CIO, CLC, the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations
Board, by the Regional Director for Region 31, issued a complaint
160 NLRB No. 135.
COLLINS & AIRMAN CORP. 1751
dated May 23, 1966, against Collins & Aikman Corporation, herein
called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Sections 8 (a) (5) and (1) and 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 on the
Respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges, in
substance, that on or about January 24, 1966, the Union was duly
certified by the Board 1 as the exclusive bargaining representative of
Respondent's employees in the unit found appropriate by the Board
and that, since on or about February 3, 1966, and more particularly
on April 20, 1966, Respondent has refused to recognize or bargain
with the Union as such exclusive bargaining representative, although
the Union has requested it to do so.
On or about July 12, 1966, the General Counsel filed with the
Board a motion for summary judgment requesting, in view of the
admissions contained in the Respondent's answer, that the allegations
of the complaint be found to be true and that the Board make find-
ings of fact and conclusions of law in conformity with the allegations
of the complaint. On July 15, 1966, the Board issued an order trans-
ferring proceeding to the Board and a notice to show cause. On
July 26, 1966, Respondent filed a response to the notice to show cause
and an amended answer to the complaint in which it denied the alle-
gations of the complaint pertaining to the Union's status as exclusive
representative of the employees in the unit.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Zagoria].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following :
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
In its response to the notice to show cause, Respondent contends
that it is entitled to a hearing to insure full litigation of the facts.
This contention is without merit. The Respondent's answer and
amended answer to the complaint and its response to the notice to
show cause establish that the Respondent is seeking to relitigate mat-
ters decided by the Board in the prior representation proceeding.
The record before us establishes that on June 4, 1965, a consent
election was conducted by the Regional Director for Region 31 among
employees in an appropriate unit. Upon notification of the results of
1 Decision and certification of representative in Case 31 -RC- 16 ( formerly 21-RC-9573)
( not published in NLRB volumes).
1752 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that election, the Respondent filed objections,2 and the Regional
Director conducted an investigation culminating in a report in which
he recommended that the objections be overruled. The Respondent
filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report, and on August 19,
1965, the Board issued an order directing a hearing. Upon completion
of the hearing, the Hearing Officer issued his report recommending
that the objections be overruled. Adopting the Hearing Officer's
report, the Board certified the Union. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed a motion for reconsideration which the Board dismissed as lack-
ing in merit.
Respondent admits that it received letters dated April 6 and 20,
1966, signed on behalf of the Union and requesting Respondent to
bargain collectively with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other terms and conditions of employment.
Respondent further admits that in a letter dated April 20, 1966, it
replied that it would not engage in collective bargaining with the
Union in order to obtain judicial review of the Board's decision over-
ruling the Respondent's objections to the election and certifying the
Union.
In the absence of newly discovered or previously unavailable evi-
dence, issues which were or could have been raised in a related repre-
sentation proceeding may not be relitigated in an unfair labor prac-
tice proceeding.3 Admittedly, the issues which Respondent seeks to
raise in the instant proceeding relate to the correctness of the Board's
disposition of Respondent's objections to the election. There is no
allegation that special circumstances exist herein which require the
Board to reexamine the determination which it made in the represen-
tation proceeding. Inasmuch as the Respondent has already litigated
these issues, it has not raised any issue which is properly triable in
the instant unfair labor practice proceeding.
All material issues thus having been decided by the Board or
admitted in the answer to the complaint, there are no matters requir-
ing 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
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein , a corpora-
tion duly organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of
2 In its objections Respondent alleged that the Union made material misrepresentations
concerning its contracts with other employers ; improperly promised to waive initiation
Pees ; improperly induced an employee to act as its election observer ; and improperly
promised immediate and substantial wage increases.
3 Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company v. N.L.R.B., 313 U.S. 146 ; United States Rubber Com-
pany, 155 NLRB 1298.
COLLINS & AIKMAN CORP. 1753
Delaware, and is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution
of textile products at its plant in Culver City, California. During the
past year , which period is representative of all material times herein,
Respondent received goods valued in excess of $50,000 from points
outside the State of California.
Respondent admits, and we find, that Respondent 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.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, CLC, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The representation proceeding
1. The unit
At all times material herein the following employees at the
Respondent's Culver City, California, facility, constitute a unit appro-
priate for collective bargaining within the meaning of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees, including shipping,
receiving, and warehouse employees at Respondent's Culver City,
California, plant, but excluding office clerical employees, guards,
professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
2. The certification
On or about June 4, 1965, a majority of the employees of Respond-
ent in said unit, in a secret election conducted under the supervision
of the Regional Director for Region 31, designated the Union as their
representative for the purpose of collective bargaining with Respond-
ent, and on January 24, 1966, the Board certified the Union as the
collective-bargaining representative of the employees in said unit and
the Union continues to be such representative.
B. The request to bargain and the Respondent's refusal
Commencing on or about February 3, 1966, and continuing to date,
and more particularly on April 6 and on April 20, 1966, the Union
has requested and is requesting Respondent to bargain collectively
with it as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all the
employees in the above-described unit. Commencing on or about Feb-
ruary 3, 1966, and continuing to date, and more particularly on
April 20, 1966 , Respondent did refuse, and continues to refuse, to
bargain collectively with the Union as exclusive collective -bargaining
representative of all employees in said unit.
1754 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 January 24, 1966,
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 the Act. We further find that Respondent has, since April 20,
1966, 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, occur-
ring in connection with its operations as described in section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce 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 representative
of all employees in the appropriate unit and, if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1. Collins & Aikman Corporation is an employer,engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, CLC, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees, including shipping,
receiving, and warehouse employees at Respondent's Culver City,
California, plant, but excluding office clerical employees, guards, pro-
fessional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4. On January 24, 1966, and at all times thereafter, the above-
named labor organization has been and is the certified and exclusive
representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(a) of the Act.
COLLINS & AIKMAN CORP. 1755
5. By refusing on or about February 3, and more particularly on
April 20, 1966, and at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively
with the above-named labor organization as the exclusive bargaining
representative of all the employees of Respondent in the ^ appropriate
unit, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) 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 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 meaning 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, Collins & Aikman Corporation, Culver City, California,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment, with Textile Workers
Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, as the exclusive and duly certified bargain-
ing representative of its employees in the following appropriate unit :
All production and maintenance employees, including shipping,
receiving, and warehouse employees at Respondent's Culver City,
California, plant, but excluding office clerical employees, guards,
professional employees, 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:
(a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named labor organiza-
tion 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 understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its Culver City, California, plant, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, to be
S In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
the words "a Decision and Order," shall be substituted for the words "a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order."
1756 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
furnished by the Regional Director for Region 31, after being duly
signed by the Company's representative, shall be posted by the Com-
pany 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 Company to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify said Regional Director for Region 31, in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Order, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a 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 Textile
Workers Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, as the exclusive representative
of the employees in the bargaining unit described below.
WWE 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 employees in the bargaining
unit described below with respect to 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 ship-
ping, receiving, and warehouse employees at Respondent's
Culver City, California, plant, but excluding office clerical
employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
COLLINS & All IMAN CORPM \'I' IO ` .
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ). ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the
date of this posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
- Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, Tenth Floor, Bartlett Building, ?15 West Seventh Street, Los
Angeles, California 90014, Telephone 688-5801, if they have any ques-
tions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.