G. K. Turner Associates

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 19, 1970

183 N.L.R.B. 658 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
G. K. Turner Associates and International Associa-
tion of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO, District Lodge No. 93. Case
20-CA-5766
June 19, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, MCCULLOCH, AND BROWN
Upon a charge filed by the International Associa-
tion of Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, District
Lodge No. 93, herein called the Union, the General
Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board, by
the Regional Director for Region 20, issued a com-
plaint dated October 20, 1969, against G. K.
Turner Associates, herein called the Respondent,
alleging that the Respondent was engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies
of the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing
were duly served on the Respondent.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the
complaint alleges in substance that on February 25,
1969, a majority of the employees in a unit stipu-
lated by the parties as appropriate, in a secret ballot
election conducted under the supervision of the Re-
gional Director for Region 20 of the National
Labor Relations Board, designated and selected the
Union as their representative for the purposes of
collective bargaining, and on September 19, 1969,
the Board certified the Union as the exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representative of the employees
in said unit.' The complaint further alleges that
since on or about October 6, 1969, and at all times
thereafter, the Respondent did refuse, and con-
tinues to refuse, to bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of its employees. On November 5,
1969, the Respondent filed its answer, admitting in
part, and denying in part, the allegations of the
complaint, presenting an affirmative defense, and
requesting that the complaint be dismissed.
On December 11, 1969, the General Counsel
filed with the Board a Motion for Summary
Judgment alleging that there were no factual issues
which would warrant a hearing. Thereafter on
December 12, 1969, the Board issued an Order
Transferring the Proceeding to the Board and
Notice To Show Cause. On January 5, 1970, the
' Decision and Certification of Representative issued September 19,
1969, in Cases 20-RC-8571 and 20-RM-1149 ( not published in NLRB
volumes)
Respondent filed its Answer to Notice To Show
Cause.
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.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
makes the following:
Rulings on the Motion for Summary Judgment
In its Answer to Notice To Show Cause, the
Respondent denies, in substance, that in the elec-
tion held on February 25, 1969, an uncoerced or
lawful majority selected the Union as the exclusive
bargaining representative, and that the Board's cer-
tification of the Union as the exclusive representa-
tive of Respondent's employees was lawful, proper,
or just. Respondent admits that since October 6,
1969, it has refused to meet and bargain with the
Union, but denies that such refusal was not made in
good faith.
On February 25, 1969, pursuant to a Stipulation
for Certification Upon Consent Election entered
into by the parties hereto, an election was con-
ducted under the direction of the Regional Director
for Region 20. The tally of ballots showed that
there were approximately 7 eligible voters and that
7 ballots were cast, of which 5 were for the Union
and 2 were against the Union, with no challenged
ballots. On March 3, 1969, the Respondent filed
timely objections to conduct affecting the results of
the election.
After an investigation the Regional Director, on
May 26, 1969, issued and served on the parties his
Report on Objections in which he recommended
that the Board overrule the objections in their en-
tirety and issue an appropriate certification of
representative. On June 13, 1969, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report
requesting that the report be reversed, the election
be set aside, and a new election directed. In the al-
ternative, Respondent requested that the Board
order the Regional Director to conduct a hearing.
On September 19, 1969, the Board overruled the
Respondent's exceptions and issued its Decision
and Certification of Representative in which it cer-
tified the Union as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the employees in the appropriate
unit.
In its answer to the complaint the Respondent
admits that beginning on or about September 23,
183 NLRB No. 81
G. K. TURNER ASSOCIATES 659
1969, and continuing to date, the Union has
requested Respondent to bargain collectively with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ-
ment, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment, and. that commencing on or about October 6,
1969, Respondent has refused to bargain with the
Union.
In its defense, Respondent contends that the
Board's decision and certification in this matter is
contrary to law and fact, that the Board improperly
overruled the Respondent's objections and excep-
tions, improperly refused to grant Respondent a
hearing on its objections and exceptions, and un-
lawfully certified the Union as the representative of
the Respondent's unit employees.
Respondent does not contend that it has any
newly discovered or previously unavailable
evidence to present. Instead, it seeks to relitigate
contentions made prior to and rejected in the
Board's decision in Cases 20-RC-8571 and
10-RM-1149. Inasmuch as Respondent has already
litigated such contentions, and the Board has con-
sidered them, no issue has been raised which is
properly triable in this proceeding.'
As all material issues have been previously de-
cided by the Board, or admitted by Respondent in
its answer to the complaint, there are no matters
requiring a hearing before the Trial Examiner. Ac-
cordingly, the General Counsel's Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment is granted. On the basis of the
record before us, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
93, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Representation Proceeding
1. The unit
The following employees constitute a unit ap-
propriate for collective-bargaining purposes within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees in-
cluding all shipping and receiving clerks of
Respondent at its Palo Alto, California, loca-
tion, excluding office clerical employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
2. The certification
On February 25, 1969, a majority of the em-
ployees of Respondent in said unit, in a secret bal-
lot election conducted under the supervision of the
Regional Director for Region 20, designated the
Union as their representative for the purpose of
collective bargaining with Respondent, and on Sep-
tember 19, 1969, the Union was certified as the
collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in said unit and continues to be such
representative.
B. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's
Refusal
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is a California corporation engaged
in the manufacture and nonretail sale of technical
laboratory instruments, with a place of business of
Palo Alto, California. Respondent, in the course
and conduct of its business operations, annually
purchases goods and services valued in excess of
$50,000 directly from suppliers located outside the
State of California.
Respondent admits, and we find, 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.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers , AFL-CIO, District Lodge No.
'E-Z Davies Chevrolet , 161 NLRB 1380
Commencing on or about September 23, 1969,
and continuing to date, the Union has requested
and is requesting Respondent to bargain collective-
ly with the Union as the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of the employees in the
above-described unit. Since October 6, 1969, and
continuing to date, Respondent has refused and
continues to refuse to bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of all employees in said unit.
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 and that
the Union at all times since September 19, 1969,
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 October
6, 1969, refused to bargain collectively with the
427-258 O-LT - 74 - 43
660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of
its employees in the appropriate unit. By such
refusal Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The acts of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with its operations
as described in section I, above , have a close, inti-
mate, 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 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, bar-
gain 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.
In order to insure that the employees in the ap-
propriate unit will be accorded the services of their
selected bargaining agent for the period provided
by law, we shall construe the initial year of certifi-
cation as beginning on the date the Respondent
commences to bargain in good faith with the Union
as the recognized bargaining representative in the
appropriate unit. See Mar-Jac Poultry Company,
Inc., 136 NLRB 785; Commerce Company d/b/a
Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229, enfd. 328 F.2d
600 (C.A. 5), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817; and Bur-
nett Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1421, enfd.
350 F.2d 57 (C.A. 10).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. G. K. Turner Associates is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, District Lodge No.
93, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The following unit is an appropriate unit for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
All production and maintenance employees in-
cluding all shipping and receiving clerks of
Respondent at its Palo Alto, California, loca-
tion, excluding office clerical employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
4. Since September 19, 1969, the Union has
been the exclusive representative of all the em-
ployees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the
purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By refusing on or about October 6, 1969, and
at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with
the Union as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of all the employees in the appropriate unit,
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in un-
fair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) of the Act.
6, By the aforesaid refusal to bargain , Respon-
dent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced,
and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing,
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them in Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)( I) 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 Respondent, G.
K. Turner Associates, Palo Alto, California, its of-
ficers, 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 International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO,
District Lodge No. 93, as the exclusive bargaining
representative of its employees in the following ap-
propriate unit:
All production and maintenance employees in-
cluding all shipping and receiving clerks of
Respondent at its Palo Alto, California, loca-
tion, excluding office clerical employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise 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 organization as the exclusive representative of
all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other
G. K. TURNER ASSOCIATES
terms and conditions of employment and, if an un-
derstanding is reached, embody such understanding
in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its place of business copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix."3 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 20, after being duly signed by Respon-
dent's representative, 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 al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20,
in writing , within 10 days from the date of this
Decision and Order, what steps have been taken to
comply herewith.
I In the event that the Board 's 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 Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
A PPEND!X
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively
with International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, District
Lodge No. 93 as the exclusive representative
661
of the employees in the bargaining unit
described below.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees 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 represen-
tative of all our employees in the bargaining
unit described below with respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours, and other terms and condi-
tions of employment, and, if an understanding
is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement. The bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance em-
ployees including all shipping and receiv-
ing clerks at our Palo Alto, California, lo-
cation, excluding office clerical em-
ployees, guards and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
Dated By
G. K. TURNER
ASSOCIATES
(Employer)
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, 13050 Federal Building, 450 Gol-
den Gate Avenue, Box 36047, San Francisco,
California 94102, Telephone 415-556-3197.