Graneto Datsun

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 17, 1975

220 N.L.R.B. 399 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

GRANETO DATSUN
Graneto Datsun, A Graneto Company and Automo-
tive, Petroleum & Allied Industries Employees
Union, Local 618 affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men & Helpers of America . Case 14-CA-8194
September 17, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND PENELLO
On April 30, 1975, Administrative Law Judge Eu-
gene E. Dixon issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief.
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 au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Graneto Datsun, A
Graneto Company, Manchester, Missouri, its offi-
cers, agents , successors , and assigns , shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order.
1 We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that since the
issues concerning the Union 's status as a labor organization as defined by
the Act and the appropriateness of the unit were decided in a prior case
involving the same parties , Graneto-Datsun, A Graneto Company, 203 NLRB
550 (1973), they need not be relitigated in this proceeding.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
EUGENE E. DIXON, Administrative Law Judge: This pro-
ceeding, brought under Section 10(b) of the National La-
bor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), herein called
the Act, was heard at St . Louis, Missouri , on March 17,
1975. The complaint , dated February 13, 1975, based upon
charges filed and served on October 16, 1974, was issued
by the Regional Director for Region 14 (St. Louis, Missou-
ri), on behalf of the General Counsel of the National Labor
399
Relations Board, herein called the General Counsel and
the Board.
The complaint alleged that Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in unfair labor practices by failing and
refusing to furnish information regarding the wages, hours,
and working conditions of its employees relevant and nec-
essary to the bargaining representative to enable it to bar-
gain effectively with Respondent, thus violating Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. In its duly filed answer Respon-
dent denied the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Upon the entire record and from my observation of the
witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS
At all times material Respondent has been a corporation
duly organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of
the State of Missouri. At all times material Respondent has
maintained its principal office and place of business in
Manchester, Missouri, where it has been engaged in the
retail sale of new and used automobiles, automobile parts,
and service. During the calendar year 1974 which is a rep-
resentative period Respondent, in the course and conduct
of its business operations, derived gross revenues in excess
of $500,000 from the retail sale of new and used automo-
biles, automobile parts, and service at its Manchester, Mis-
souri, facility. During the same period of time Respondent
in the course and conduct of its business operations pur-
chased and caused to be transported and delivered to its
Manchester, Missouri, place of business, automobiles, and
automobile parts and other goods and materials valued in
excess of $50,000 of which automobiles and automobile
parts valued in excess of $50,000 were transported and de-
livered to its place of business in Manchester, Missouri,
directly from points outside the State of Missouri. Respon-
dent at all times material has been an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Automotive, Petroleum & Allied Industries Employees
Union, Local 618, affiliated with International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers
of America, and District No. 9, International Association
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, at all
times material have been labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
On May 14, 1973, the Board issued an Order in Case 203
NLRB 550 that Respondent reinstate and make whole cer-
tain discharged employees and bargain with Automotive,
Petroleum & Allied Industries Employees Union, Local
Respondent, as it did in the original case, contends here that District
No. 9 is not a labor organization . The Board decided against Respondent
there and the matter is thus res judicaia
220 NLRB No. 60
400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
618, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of America,
and District No. 9, International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, as joint bargaining
agent for a unit of Respondent 's employees composed of
all automobile and truck mechanics and machinists , parts-
men, lubrication men, porters , and truckdrivers , excluding
salesmen , office clerical and professional employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act .2 On May 26,
1973, the joint bargaining agent (hereinafter referred to as
the Union) requested Respondent to meet for the purpose
of collective bargaining pursuant to the Board's Decision
and Order. On June 7, 1973, Respondent's attorney re-
plied, saying that his client had not yet decided if it was
going to comply with the Board 's Decision and Order.
On September 21, 1973, the General Counsel filed with
the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals an application for en-
forcement of the Board's Order . On December 6, 1973, the
Regional Director informed the Board that the Respon-
dent was in the process of complying with the Board's Or-
der. In this posture the General Counsel on December 11,
1974, filed with the court a motion to withdraw the en-
forcement application which motion was granted on De-
cember 12, 1974.
Thereafter Respondent posted the appropriate notices
and offered reinstatement and backpay to two employees
as ordered by the Board. On March 6, 1973, the Union
wrote a letter to Respondent requesting a meeting for pur-
poses of collective bargaining and acknowledging
Respondent 's compliance . Respondent answered on
March 26 , 1974, agreeing to meet at a mutually convenient
time . Pursuant to further arrangement the parties met on
April 10, 1974. At this meeting the Union requested infor-
mation from Respondent regarding employee seniority
dates , hiring dates , wages, and working conditions, and
other fringe benefits enjoyed by the employees . On its part
Respondent requested copies of labor agreements to which
both unions were presently parties . These were immedi-
ately furnished by the respective unions . By letter dated
April 15, 1974, the Union confirmed the oral request for
information specifically requesting "a current seniority list,
prevailing wage rate of all employees in their respective
classifications , all other conditions in effect , such as insur-
ance, pension plans , holidays, vacations , sick leave, jury
duty, company furnished uniforms , profit sharing and
hours of work ." The letter explained that the foregoing in-
formation was necessary to effectively negotiate a contract.
On May 20, 1974, the Union followed up its April 15
request by another letter noting the failure to receive a
reply to the April 15 request . On May 23, 1974,
Respondent's attorney replied that he was awaiting the in-
formation himself and would send it as soon as he received
it. Finally on July 22, 1974, Respondent's attorney sent a
letter containing some of the requested information but
failed to give the names of employees in each job classifica-
tion , provided no information on overtime, failed to give
any details on the life insurance and hospitalization insur-
ance provided by Respondent, and failed to give any infor-
2Respondent's dental of the appropnateness of the unit is also res jud:cata.
mation concerning seniority, sick leave, jury duty, or profit
sharing, and failed to state whether it provided fringe bene-
fits other than those specifically requested by the Union.
The Union called Respondent's attorney on August 6,
1974, and requested the missing information, explaining
that the information supplied was not sufficient to enable
the Union to negotiate a contract. The Union confirmed
this request in a letter dated August 8, 1974 , which specifi-
cally requested "information, such as names of employees,
their hiring dates, individual rates of pay, paid holidays, if
vacations are paid and vacation qualifications, a copy of
existing hospitalization and life insurance plans , pension or
profit-sharing information, if employees receive sick leave,,
jury duty pay, cost of living increases , severance pay, over-
time pay, cost of uniforms, and any other gratuities and
working conditions which employees enjoy ...."
Receiving no response to the August 8, 1974, letter, Lo-
cal 618 filed unfair labor practice charges with the Board
on October 16, 1974. A settlement agreement in which Re-
spondent agreed to provide the Union with the requested
information was signed by the parties and subsequently
approved by the acting Regional Director on December 13,
1974. On January 27, 1975, the Union wrote a letter re-
questing the information specified in the settlement agree-
ment. No response was received. On February 7, 1975, the
compliance officer for Region 14 informed Respondent's
attorney that he was recommending withdrawal of the set-
tlement agreement . On February 13, 1975, the Regional
Director issued an order revoking the approval of the set-
tlement agreement and informing Respondent of such re-
vocation.
Conclusions
Notwithstanding that finally, about a week before the
hearing herein , Respondent furnished the requested infor-
mation and that "a big part of what was furnished . . . was
negative information ," on this record I agree with the Gen-
eral Counsel that a bargaining order is appropriate here
and necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. I so
find.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Graneto Datsun, A Graneto Company,
is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(2) and (6) of the Act.
2. District No. 9, International Association of Machin-
ists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, and Automotive,
Petroleum & Allied Industries Employees Union, Local
618, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America,
are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
3. All automobile and truck mechanics and machinists,
partsmen , lubrication men, porters , and truckdrivers, ex-
cluding salesmen , office clerical and professional employ-
ees, guards , and supervisors as defined in the Act em-
ployed by Respondent at its Manchester , Missouri, place
of business constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
GRANETO DATSUN
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act.
4. At all times since May 14, 1973, said labor organiza-
tions as joint representative have been the exclusive repre-
sentative of all the employees in the aforesaid unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By failing and refusing upon request to furnish unit
employment information relevant and necessary to the
bargaining process Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(aX5) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices it will be recommended that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Thus it will
be recommended that Respondent be ordered to bargain
with the Union upon request and to cease and desist from
refusing to bargain with the Union.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact , conclusions of law,
and the entire record , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDERS
Respondent Graneto Datsun, A Graneto Company,
Manchester, Missouri, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively
with District No. 9, International Association of Machin-
ists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, and Automotive,
Petroleum & Allied Industries Employees Union, Local
618, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America,
as the joint exclusive bargaining representative of all of
Respondent's employees in an appropriate unit consisting
of all automobile and truck mechanics and machinists,
partsmen, lubrication men, porters and truckdrivers, ex-
cluding salesmen, office clerical and professional employ-
ees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request furnish unit employment information
relevant and necessary to the bargaining process and other-
wise bargain collectively with the above-named Unions as
the joint exclusive bargaining representative of all
Respondent's employees in the above appropriate unit and
if an understanding is reached embody such understanding
in a signed agreement.
401
(b) Post at its place of business in Manchester, Missouri,
copies, of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 4 Cop-
ies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Di-
rector for Region 14, after being duly signed by
Respondent's representative, shall be posted by it immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respon-
dent has taken to comply herewith.
3 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings , conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
4In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the
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."
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 with Dis-
trict No. 9, International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, and Automotive,
Petroleum & Allied Industries Employees Union, Lo-
cal 618, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, as the joint exclusive-bargaining representa-
tive of all our employees in the appropriate unit of all
automobile and truck mechanics and machinists,
partsmen, lubrication men, porters, and truckdrivers,
excluding salesmen, office clercial and professional
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in Sec-
tion 2(11) of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL, upon request, furnish unit employment in-
formation relevant and necesary to the bargaining
process and otherwise bargain collectively with the
above-named Unions as the joint exclusive bargaining
representative of all our employees in the above ap-
propriate unit and if an understanding is reached em-
body such understanding in a signed agreement.
GRANETO DATSUN, A GRANETO COMPANY