Georgia-Pacific Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 2, 1979

241 N.L.R.B. 1243 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

Georgia-Pacific Corporation and United Paperworkers
International Union, AFL-CIO. Case 15 CA 7176
May 2, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS PENFI I.I.
AND TRUESDAI.E
Upon a charge filed on January 23, 1979, by
United Paperworkers International Union, AFL-
CIO, herein called the Union, and duly served on
Georgia-Pacific Corporation, herein called Respon-
dent, the General Counsel of the National Labor Re-
lations Board, by the Acting Regional Director for
Region 15, issued a complaint on February 1, 1979,
against Respondent, alleging that Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of
the charge and complaint were duly served on the
parties to this proceeding.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the com-
plaint alleges, in substance, that on December I 1,
1978, following a Board election in Case 15-RC-
6313, the Union was duly certified as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of Respondent's
employees in the unit found appropriate;' and that,
commencing on or about January 15, 1979, and at all
times thereafter, Respondent has refused, and contin-
ues to date to refuse, to bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive bargaining representative, al-
though the Union has requested and is requesting it
to do so. On February 12, 1979, Respondent filed its
answer to the complaint admitting in part, and deny-
ing in part, the allegations in the complaint.
On February 21, 1979, counsel for the General
Counsel filed directly with the Board a motion to
transfer and continue case before the Board and a
Motion for Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on
February 28, 1979, the Board issued an Order trans-
ferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice To
Show Cause why the General Counsel's Motion for
Summary Judgment should not be granted. Respon-
dent thereafter filed a response to the Notice To Show
Cause.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
I Official noice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding.
Case 15-RC-6313, as the term "record" is defined in Secs. 102.68 and
102.69(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations. Series 8. as amended, See
LTV Electrosysrems, Inc.. 166 NLRB 938 (1967). enfd. 388 F.2d 683 (4th Cir.
1968); Golden Age Beverage Co. 167 NLRB 151 (1967). enfd. 415 F.2d 26
(5th Cir. 1969); Interispe Co v. Penello, 269 F.Supp 573 (D.C.Va., 1967).
Follerr Corp., 164 NLRB 378 (19671, enfd 397 F.2d 91 (7th Cir. 1968): Sec.
9(d) of the NLRA, as amended.
GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORP.
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following:
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
In its answer to the complaint, Respondent con-
tends, in substance, that the Union's certification is
invalid because the Board erroneously failed to sus-
tain Respondent's objections to the July 20. 1978,2
election. In the underlying representation proceeding
(Case 15-RC 6313), Respondent contended that (1)
while the polls were open its observer was sent out of
the polling area on an errand for the Board agent and
thus was unable to insure the integrity of the ballot
box, and (2) during the critical period, the Petitioner's
agent made a promise of benefit to eligible voters con-
cerning the waiver of initiation fees. The General
Counsel contends that since the sole issue raised by
Respondent is the validity of the certification in Case
15-RC-6313, Respondent is precluded from litigating
in this case any issue which was or could have been
raised in the representation proceeding. We agree
with the General Counsel.
Our review of the record herein, including that in
the underlying representation proceeding, Case 15
RC 6313, shows that the election in this matter, held
on July 20, 1978, pursuant to a Stipulation for Certi-
fication Upon Consent Election, dated June 28, 1978,
resulted in a vote of 43 for and 38 against the Union
with I nondeterminative challenged ballot. On July
26 Respondent filed objections to conduct affecting
the results of the election. On August 14 the Acting
Regional Director for Region 15 issued his Report on
Objections, Order directing hearing on objections,
and notice of hearing, wherein it was recommended
that Respondent's Objection 3 be overruled and that
its Objections I and 2 raised issues best resolved after
a hearing to be conducted by a duly designated hear-
ing officer. On October 4, subsequent to a hearing, the
Hearing Officer's report and recommendation to the
Board issued recommending that Respondent's objec-
tions be overruled in their entirety and a Certification
of Representative issue. Respondent filed exceptions
with the Board. Thereafter, on December II, the
Board issued a decision and Certification of Repre-
sentative which adopted the Hearing Officer's report
and recommendation. The Board further certified the
Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative in the appropriate unit. The sole issue raised
by Respondent in its answer to the complaint and in
its response to the Board's Notice To Show Cause is
the validity of the certification in Case 15 RC 6313.
2 Unless otherwise noted all dates are 1978
241 NLRB No. 203
1243
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It thus appears that Respondent is endeavoring to
relitigate issues considered and determined in the rep-
resentation proceeding.
It is well settled that in the absence of newly dis-
covered or previously unavailable evidence or special
circumstances a respondent in a proceeding alleging a
violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled to relitigate
issues which were or could have been litigated in a
prior representation proceeding.3
All issues raised by Respondent in this proceeding
were or could have been litigated in the prior repre-
sentation proceeding, and Respondent does not offer
to adduce at a hearing any newly discovered or previ-
ously unavailable evidence nor does it allege that any
special circumstances exist herein which would re-
quire the Board to reexamine the decision made in
the representation proceeding. We therefore find that
Respondent has not raised any issue which is prop-
erly litigable in this unfair labor practice proceeding.
Accordingly, we grant the Motion for Summary
Judgment.
On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
At all times material herein, Respondent, a Geor-
gia corporation with facilities located in Citronelle,
Alabama, has been engaged in the operation of a
chip 'n saw mill. During the past 12 months, a period
representative of all times material herein, Respon-
dent, in the course and conduct of its business opera-
tions at Citronelle, Alabama, purchased and received
goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 di-
rectly from points outside the State of Alabama. Dur-
ing the same representative period, Respondent sold
and shipped goods valued in excess of $50,000 di-
rectly to customers located outside the State of Ala-
bama.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, 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, and that it will
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED.
United Paperworkers International Union, AFL-
CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
ISee Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. N.L.R.B., 313 U.S. 146. 162 (1941);
Rules and Regulations of the Board. Sec. 102.67(f) and Sec. 102.69(c).
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Representation Proceeding
1. The unit
The following employees of Respondent constitute
a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees
employed by Respondent at its Citronelle, Ala-
bama, chip 'n saw mill; excluding office clerical
employees, forestry employees, professional em-
ployees, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
2. The certification
On July 20, 1978, a majority of the employees of
Respondent in said unit, in a secret-ballot election
conducted under the supervision of the Acting Re-
gional Director for Region 15, designated the Union
as their representative for the purpose of collective
bargaining with Respondent. The Union was certified
as the collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in said unit on December 11, 1978, and the
Union continues to be such exclusive representative
within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
B. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's Refusal
I. Commencing on or about January 2, 1979, and
all times thereafter, the Union has requested Respon-
dent to bargain collectively with it as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of all the employ-
ees in the above-described unit. Commencing on or
about January 15, 1979, and continuing at all times
thereafter to date, Respondent has refused, and con-
tinues to refuse, to recognize and bargain with the
Union as the exclusive representative for collective
bargaining of all employees in said unit.
2. By letter dated January 2, 1979, the Union re-
quested, and is continuing to request, that Respon-
dent furnish it with the following information: a com-
plete list of all job classifications, with rates of pay;
shift differential, if any; number of holidays and days
observed; amounts of vacation and eligibility require-
ments, if any, for securing same; safety rules; and a
complete list of Respondent's work rules for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining. Since on or about Janu-
ary 15, 1979, Respondent has failed and refused, and
continues to fail and refuse, to furnish the Union with
the information described herein.
Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since
January 15, 1979, and at all times thereafter, refused
1244
GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORP.
to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclu-
sive representative of the employees in the appropri-
ate unit, and that, by such refusal, 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. 'IIF EFFE(I O()F TE UNFAIR lABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with its operations
described in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEI)Y
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing 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 ap-
propriate unit, and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
In order to insure that the employees in the appro-
priate unit will be accorded the services of their se-
lected bargaining agent for the period provided by
law, we shall construe the initial period of certifica-
tion as beginning on the date Respondent commences
to bargain in good faith with the Union as the recog-
nized bargaining representative in the appropriate
unit. See Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., 136 NLRB
785 (1962); Commerce Company d/b/a Lamar Hotel,
140 NLRB 226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (5th
Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817 (1964); Burnett
Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419, 1421 (1964),
enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th Cir. 1965).
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record, makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Georgia-Pacific Corporation is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. United Paperworkers International Union,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees em-
ployed by Respondent at its Citronelle, Alabama,
chip 'n saw mill; excluding office clerical employees,
forestry employees, professional employees, guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a
unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. Since December 11, 1978, the above-named la-
bor organization has been and now is the certified
and exclusive representative of all employees in the
aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of
the Act.
5. By refusing on or about January 15, 1979, and
at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the
above-named labor organization as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of all the employees of Re-
spondent in the appropriate unit, Respondent has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
6. By refusing to bargain collectively with the
above-named labor organization as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of all employees of Respon-
dent in the appropriate unit by refusing on or about
January 15, 1979, and at all times thereafter to fur-
nish the following information: a complete list of all
job classifications, with rates of pay; shift differential,
if any; number of holidays and days observed;
amounts of vacation and eligibility requirements, if
any, for securing same; safety rules; and a complete
list of Respondent's work rules, with respect to said
unit employees, Respondent has engaged in, and is
engaging in, unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
7. 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 thereby has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing 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 Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Citronelle, Alabama, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning
rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and con-
ditions of employment with United Paperworkers In-
ternational Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of its employees in the
following appropriate unit:
1245
I)I(ISIONS OF NATIONAL. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All production and maintenance employees
employed by Respondent at its Citronelle, Ala-
bama, chip 'n saw mill: excluding office clerical
employees, forestry employees, professional em-
ployees, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with United
Paperworkers International Union. AFL-CIO, as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the employees
in the bargaining unit described above, by refusing to
furnish said labor organization with the following in-
formation: a complete list of all job classifications,
with rates of pay: shift differential, if any: number of
holidays and days observed; amounts of vacations
and eligibility requirements, if any, for securing same;
safety rules; and a complete list of Respondent's work
rules.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them in 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 terms
and conditions of employment, and, if an understand-
ing is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement.
(b) Upon request, bargain collectively with United
Paperworkers International Union, AFL CIO, as the
exclusive bargaining representative of all employees
in the aforesaid appropriate unit, by furnishing said
labor organization with the following information: a
complete list of all job classifications, with rates of
pay; shift differential, if any; number of holidays and
days observed; amounts of vacations and eligibility
requirements, if any, for securing same; safety rules;
and a complete list of Respondent's work rules.
(c) Post at its Citronelle, Alabama, chip 'n saw mill
facility copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix."4 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 15, after being duly
signed by Respondent's representative, shall be
posted by 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 Respon-
4 In the event that this Order is enforced by a judgment ofa United States
court of appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."
dent to insure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
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
concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment with
United Paperworkers International Union,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining represent-
ative of the employees in the bargaining unit de-
scribed below.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively
with United Paperworkers International Union,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining represent-
ative of the employees in the bargaining unit de-
scribed below by refusing to furnish said labor
organization with the following information: a
complete list of all job classifications, with rates
of pay; shift differential, if any; number of holi-
days and days observed; amounts of vacations
and eligibility requirements, if any for securing
same; and safety rules and a complete list of our
work rules.
WE 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 representa-
tive of all employees in the bargaining unit de-
scribed below, 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. The bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees
employed by us at our Citronelle, Alabama,
chip n' saw mill facilities; excluding office
clerical employees, forestry employees, profes-
sional employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively
with United Paperworkers International Union,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining represent-
ative of all employees in the unit described above
by furnishing said labor organization with the
1246
GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORP.
following information: a complete list of all job
classifications, with rates of pay; shift differen-
tial, if any; number of holidays and days ob-
served; amounts of vacations and eligibility re-
1247
quirements, if any, for securing same; and safety
rules and a complete list of our work rules.
GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION