El Monte Tool and Die Casting, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 9, 1979

244 N.L.R.B. 40 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

I)IFCISIONS OF NATIONAL. I.ABOR RELATIONS BOARD
El Monte Txool and Die Casting, Inc. and Sheet Metal
Workers' International Association, Local Union
No. 170, AFL-CIO. Case 21 CA 15683
August 9, 1979
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On September 22, 1977, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board issued its Decision and Order in the
above-entitled proceeding,' finding that Respondent,
El Monte Tool and Die Casting, Inc., had violated
Section 8(a)(5) and ( ) of the Act by refusing to bar-
gain with Sheet Metal Workers' International Associ-
ation, Local Union No. 170, AFL-CIO, the Union
herein, as the exclusive representative of the employ-
ees in the appropriate unit.2
The Board has, sua sponte, decided to reconsider
this case in light of its recent decision in General Knit
' 232 NLRB 267
2The Union was certified on March 15, 1977, pursuant to a Supplemental
Decision and Certification of Representative issued by the Regional Director
for Region 21 after a hearing on Respondent's objections to an election held
on January 21, 1977. In his Supplemental Decision, the Regional Director,
inter alia, found that certain alleged union misrepresentations (see fn. 3,
infra) were not objectionable under Hollywood Ceramics Company, Inc., 140
NLRB 221 (1962). Respondent thereafter requested review of that Supple-
mental Decision on the grounds that the Regional Director erred in relying
on Hollywood Ceramics and that the Board should either eliminate or modify
that rule. On April 27, 1977, the Board denied Respondent's request for
review, relying on its decision in Shopping Kaurt Food Market. Inc., 228
NLRB 1311 (1977). While adhering to his dissent in Shopping Kart, Chair-
man Fanning nevertheless joined in denying review on the grounds that the
alleged misconduct did not violate Hollywood Ceramics standards.
Thereafter, pursuant to a charge filed by the Union on May 2, 1977, the
General Counsel issued a complaint against Respondent on May 6, 1977,
alleging that Respondent had refused and was continuing to refuse to bar-
gain with the Union as the certified representative of its employees, in viola-
tion of Sec. 8(aX5) and (1) of the Act. Respondent thereafter filed an answer
admitting in part, and denying in part, certain allegations of the complaint.
Subsequent thereto, the General Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judg-
ment with the Board which was granted on September 22. 1977 (see fn. I.
supra).
o/'Califlrnia, Inc., 239 NLRB 619 (1978). In that de-
cision the Board overruled Shopping Kart Food Mar-
ket, Inc., supra, and decided to return to the standards
set forth in Hollywiood Ceramics, supra. in considering
alleged misrepresentations of parties during the pre-
election period. Having duly reconsidered the matter,
we have decided to reaffirm the Board's original De-
cision and Order herein, inasmuch as we find that the
Regional Director properly overruled Respondent's
objections3 under the Hollywood C'eramics standards,
which standards we now adhere to in accord with our
decision in General Knit..vupra.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby affirms its Decision and Order
heretofore entcrcd in this proceeding on September
22. 1977 (232 NLRB 267).
MEMBERS PNELLO AND MURPHY, concurring:
For the reasons set forth in our separate dissenting
opinions in General Knit of California. Inc.. 239
NLRB 619 (1978), we continue to adhere to the prin-
ciples enunciated in our separate opinions in Shop-
ping Kart Food Market, Inc., 228 NLRB 1311 (1977).
Having rejected the objections to the election herein
on the authority of Shopping Kart, supra, we reaffirm
that decision for the same reasons.
The alleged misrepresentations which formed the basis for Respondent's
objections in the underlying representation proceeding concerned certain
leaflets purportedly distributed by the Union to employees which stated,
inter alia. that (I ) in the past, a large portion of employee medical bills had
not been covered by the Emploer's medical plan; (2) employees' wages had
in the past been cut by foremen. supervisors, or leaders and (3) if the Union
lost the election, there would be no wage increases in the future.
244 NLRB No. 8
40