Crest Leather Manufacturing Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 27, 1967

167 N.L.R.B. 1085 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

CREST LEATHER MFG. CORP. 1085
Crest Leather Manufacturing Corporation and
International Union of Electrical, Radio and
Machine Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 12-CA-3787
October 27, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING,JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On July 14, 1967, Trial Examiner Charles W.
Schneider issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Decision and a supporting brief,' and the Charging
Party filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision.2
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
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The
Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclu-
sions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified
below and hereby orders that Respondent, Crest
Leather Manufacturing Corporation, St. Peters-
burg, Florida, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order.;
Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied as, in our
opinion, the record, including the exceptions and briefs, adequately
presents the issues and positions of the parties
z The Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the Charging Party's excep-
tions on the ground that they do not comply with Section 102 46(b) of the
Board Rules and Regulations. Series 8, as amended As the Charging Par-
ty's exceptions are in substantial compliance with our requirements, and
make clear the position taken, we deny the Respondent's motion
3 Delete from paragraph 2(b) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order that part thereof which reads to be furnished" and substitute
therefor "on forms provided
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THE REPRESENTATION PROCEEDING
CHARLES W. SCHNEIDER , Trial Examiner : On June 24,
1966, pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon con-
sent election entered into between Crest Leather Manu-
facturing Corporation , St. Petersburg , Florida, the
Respondent herein , and International Union of Electri-
cal, Radio and Machine Workers , AFL-CIO, the Union
herein, an election was held under the supervision of the
Board ' s Regional Director for Region 12, among em-
ployees of the Respondent in an appropriate bargaining
unit hereinafter described. The Union received a majority
of the votes cast in the election.
On June 30 , 1966, the Respondent filed timely objec-
tions to conduct of election and conduct affecting the
result of election . Respondent ' s objections alleged the fol-
lowing:
1. On the day of the election a supervisor of Crest
acting on behalf of the International Union of Elec-
trical , Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO (the
"Union") told unit employees to wear Union buttons
and told them they should be for the Union in the
election.
2. One or more supervisors of Crest actively par-
ticipated in the Union's organizational campaign.
3. The Union offered to waive Union initiation
fees for individual employees if they would vote for
the Union in the election.
4. Over the objections of Employer , employees
were allowed to enter the voting area wearing large
Union buttons , which constituted the only propagan-
da material allowed in the election area on election
day.
In accordance with the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as revised Janu-
ary 1, 1965, the Regional Director conducted an investiga-
tion and , on August 5, 1966 , issued and duly served on
the parties his report on objections to election and recom-
mendations in which he recommended to the Board that
the objections be overruled and the Union certified as the
bargaining representative of the employees involved.
Thereafter , the Respondent filed timely exceptions to the
Regional Director's report and recommendations, a mo-
tion for a hearing, and a brief in support thereof. The
Respondent requested that a new election be ordered, or,
in the alternative , that a hearing be directed on the materi-
al factual issues raised.
On September 2, 1966, the Board ordered that a hear-
ing be held for the purpose of taking testimony to resolve
the issues raised by Respondent's objections 1 and 2. The
Board deferred ruling on the Respondent's objections
3 and 4 pending disposition of objections I and 2.
Pursuant to the Board ' s Order, a hearing was held at St.
Petersburg , Florida, on October 4 and 5, 1966, before
Thaddeus R. Sobiesky , Hearing Officer . All parties to the
proceeding appeared and were afforded full opportunity
to be heard , to examine and cross -examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.
On October 19, 1966, the Hearing Officer issued and
duly served on the parties his Report and Recommenda-
tion on Objections , finding and concluding upon all of the
credible evidence presented during the hearing that
167 NLRB No. 155
1086 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent's objections 1 and 2 were insufficient to
raise material or substantial issues affecting the result of
the election, and recommending to the Board that they be
dismissed.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Hearing Officer's report and recommendation on objec-
tions, and a brief in support thereof.
On March 1, 1967, the Board issued its Decision and
Certification of Representative. In its Decision the Board
stated that it had considered the Hearing Officer's report
on objections 1 and 2, the Employer's exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in the case and that it adopted
the Hearing Officer's findings and recommendations with
additions and modifications. The Board further adopted
the Regional Director's findings and recommendations as
to objections 3 and 4, saying,
In our opinion the Employer's exceptions raise no
material or substantial issues of fact or law which
would warrant reversal of the Regional Director's
findings and recommendations as to those objec-
tions, or require a hearing on these objections.
Accordingly, the Board dismissed the Respondent's ob-
jections to the election, and certified the Union as the col-
lective-bargaining representative in the appropriate unit.
THE COMPLAINT CASE
On April 18, 1967, upon a charge filed by the Union on
March 20, 1967, the Regional Director issued a com-
plaint alleging inter alia that by letter of March 3, 1967,
the Union requested the Respondent to bargain and that
by letter of March 16, 1967, the Respondent refused to
do so.
The Respondent duly filed its answer in which it ad-
mitted certain allegations of the complaint and denied
others. With the exception of the alleged request and
refusal to bargain, all the material, factual allegations de-
nied by the answer had been affirmatively found by the
Board in the representation case. On May 16, 1967, the
General Counsel filed a motion to strike certain portions
of Respondent's answer and motion for summary
judgment. The ground urged by the General Counsel for
the motion to strike was that the various denials were
sham and false.
Attached to the motion for summary judgment as ex-
hibits, among other documents, were copies of the March
3 and 16, 1967, letters referred to in the complaint In the
March 3 letter the Union requested a meeting with the
Respondent for the purpose of negotiating an agreement
covering the employees in the bargaining unit , and also
requested that the Respondent supply the Union certain
information relating to the employees in the unit and their
conditions of employment. The Respondent's reply of
March 16, inter alia, stated its belief that the election was
invalid and declared its intention not to recognize the
Union as the bargaining representative.
On May 18, 1967, I issued an order, returnable June 2,
1967, to show cause as to whether the General Counsel's
motions should be granted. The order directed the
Respondent to specifically state whether it contested the
authenticity of any of the exhibits attached to the General
Counsel' s motion . The order also provided that in default
of a response disclosing material unresolved issues litiga-
ble before and requiring hearing by a trial examiner the
motions would be granted The order also indefinitely
postponed the hearing scheduled for May 23, 1967, pend-
ing disposition of General Counsel's motion.
On June 2, 1967, the Respondent filed a response to
order to show cause, a motion to quash General Coun-
sel's motion for summary judgment, and a brief in support
of the motion to quash. The response does not contest the
authenticity of any of the exhibits attached to the motion
for summary judgment.
RULING ON THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
It has been seen that the issue of the merit of the
Respondent ' s objections to the election was decided by
the Board in the representation case. In the absence of
newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence, or
special circumstances requiring reexamination of the
determination in the representation case, issues which
were or could have been raised in a representation case
may not be relitigated in a related unfair labor practice
proceeding Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 163
NLRB 579, and cases there cited.
The Respondent contends that ( 1) the Board lacks
authority to authorize the granting of summary judgment,
(2) hearings are required in unfair labor practice cases, (3)
judgment should be denied because of special circum-
stances, and (4) there is genuine issue as to material facts.
As to the Respondent 's contentions numbers 1 and 2,
the Board has held, with judicial approval , that evidential
hearings are not required in unfair labor practice cases
where there are no material issues , and in such cases
summary judgment is appropriate.'
As to Respondent ' s contentions numbers 3 and 4, these
are substantially reiterations of the Respondent 's argu-
ments to the Regional Director and to the Board concern-
ing the merit of its objections - issues already fully de-
cided ; or are an apparent and untimely attempt to enlarge
the objections . Additional evidence which the Respond-
ent indicates it would submit is not, and is not claimed to
be, newly discovered or previously unavailable. The
record discloses no special circumstances requiring reex-
amination of the Board ' s determinations.
The Board 's rulings leaving no remaining material fac-
tual issues to be decided , no evidential hearing is neces-
sary, summary judgment i s appropriate, and the General
Counsel ' s motion for summary judgment therefore is
granted . The Respondent's motion to quash the motion
for summary judgment is denied.
The General Counsel's motion to strike various por-
tions of the answer is also denied . Since the Respondent's
answer raises no litigable issues, the allegations of the
complaint - insofar as consistent with the findings herein
- are deemed admitted true and are so found . Board Rules
and Regulations , Series 8, as revised January 1, 1965,
Section 102 . 20. However , the averments of the answer
may stand as pleadings which the Respondent may press
Macomb Pottery Company, 157 NLRB 1616, enfd 376 F 2d 450
(C A 7, 1967), Krieger-Ragsdale & Company, Inc , 159 NLRB 490,
enfd 379 F 2d 517 (C A 7, 1967) And see N L R B v Air Control
Products of St Petersburg , Inc, 335 F 2d 245 (C A 5, 1964), N L R B
v Lawrence Typographical Union No 570 , afflw International Typo-
graphical Union, AFL-CIO (Kansas Color Press), 376 F 2d 643 (C A
10, 1967) See also Metropolitan Life Insurance Co , supra, Red-More
Corporation, dlbla Disco Fair, et al, 164 NLRB 638, Harry T Campbell
Sons' Corporation, 164 NLRB 247, Ore-Ida Foods, Inc, 164 NLRB
438, E-Z Davies Chevrolet, 161 NLRB 1380
CREST LEATHER MFG. CORP. 1087
before the Board or, in the event of adverse decision
there, before the courts if it so chooses.
I hereby make the following additional findings:
1. JURISDICTION
Crest Leather Manufacturing Corporation is and has
been at all times material herein a corporation duly or-
ganized under and existing by virtue of laws of the State
of Florida.
At all times material herein, Respondent has main-
tained its principal office and place of business in St.
Petersburg, Florida, where it is engaged in the business of
manufacturing wristwatch bands.
In the course and conduct of its business, Respondent
annually purchases and receives goods, materials, and
supplies valued in excess of $50,000 from points located
directly outside the State of Florida.
Respondent is now 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.
Respondent concerning the employees in the unit and
their conditions of employment.
By letter to the Union dated March 16, 1967, the
Respondent refused, and continues to refuse, to recog-
nize the Union as the bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit.
By such refusal the Respondent refused to bargain col-
lectively, and now refuses to bargain collectively, with
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its
employees in the appropriate unit, thereby engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and (5) and 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
In order to insure that the employees will be accorded
the statutorily prescribed services of their selected bar-
gaining agent for the period provided by law, it will be
recommended that the initial year of certification begin on
the date the Respondent commences to bargain in good
faith with the Union as the recognized representative in
the appropriate unit.2
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, and pur-
suant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I recommend that the
Board issue the following:
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine
Workers, AFL-CIO, is and has been at all times material
herein a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
Iii. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
All production and maintenance employees, including
the jig and fixture man, tool maintenance man, and cutter,
employed at Employer's St. Petersburg, Florida, plant,
excluding all office clerical employees, supervisors, and
the assistant supervisor as defined in the Act, constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
On June 24, 1966, the majority of the employees of the
Respondent in the unit described above, by a secret-bal-
lot election conducted under the supervision of the Re-
gional Director for Region 12 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, designated and selected the Union as their
representative for the purposes of collective bargaining
with Respondent.
On March 1, 1967, the Board issued its decision and
certification of representative in which it certified the
Union as the exclusive representative of all of the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment, and other conditions of employment.
At all times since March 1, 1967, the Union has been
and is such certified representative for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a)
of the Act.
On March 3, 1967, the Union by letter requested the
Respondent to meet for the purpose of negotiating an
agreement covering the employees of the bargaining unit
and requested certain personnel information from the
2 Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc, 136 NLRB 785, Commerce Com-
pany dlbla Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229, enfd 328 F 2d 600 (C A
5), Burnett Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419, 1421, enfd 350
F 2d 57 (C A 10)
' In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
ORDER
A. For the purpose of determining the effective dura-
tion of the certification, the initial year of certification
shall be deemed to begin on the date the Respondent
commences to bargain in good faith with the Union as the
recognized bargaining representative in the appropriate
unit.
B. Crest Leather Manufacturing Corporation, St.
Petersburg , Florida, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International
Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of all employees in the following ap-
propriate bargaining unit:
All production and maintenance employees , includ-
ing the jig and fixture man, tool maintenance man,
and cutter , employed at Employer's St. Petersburg,
Florida, plant , excluding all office clerical em-
ployees, supervisors , and the assistant supervisor as
defined in the Act.
(b) Interfering with efforts of said Union to negotiate
for or represent employees as a collective -bargaining
representative.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with the Interna-
tional Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all em-
ployees in the appropriate unit with respect to rates of
pay, wages , hours of work , and other terms and condi-
tions of employment , and embody in a signed agreement
any understanding reached.
(b) Post at its St. Petersburg , Florida, plant copies of
the attached notice marked " Appendix ."3 Copies of said
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order "
1088 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
notice, on forms to be furnished by the Regional Director
for Region 12, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of the Respondent, 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 the Regional Director for Region 12, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps it has taken to comply herewith.4
4 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 12, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex-
aminer 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 em-
ployees that:
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with
International Union of Electrical, Radio and
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of all the following employees:
All production and maintenance employees, in-
cluding the jig and fixture man, tool maintenance
man, and cutter, employed at our St. Petersburg,
Florida, plant, but excluding all office clerical
employees, supervisors, and the assistant super-
visor as defined in the Act.
WE WILL bargain collectively with the Union as
the exclusive representative of these employees, and
if an understanding is reached, we will sign a contract
with the Union.
WE WILL NOT interfere with efforts of said Union
to negotiate for or represent employees as a collec-
tive-bargaining representative.
CREST LEATHER MANUFAC-
TURING CORPORATION
(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, Room 706,
Federal Office Building, 500 Zack Street, Tampa, Florida
33602, Telephone 228-7711