Honeywell, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 21, 1980

251 N.L.R.B. 382 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Honeywell, Inc. and Highway Truck Drivers and
Helpers Local 107, affiliated with the Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case
4-CA-I 1001
August 21, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND PENELI.O
Upon a charge filed on April 9, 1980, by High-
way Truck Drivers and Helpers Local 107, affili-
ated with the International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, herein called the Union, and duly served
on Honeywell, Inc., herein called Respondent, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board, by the Regional Director for Region 4,
issued a complaint and notice of hearing on April
29, 1980, against Respondent, alleging that Respon-
dent 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 National Labor Relations Act, as
amended. Copies of the charge and complaint and
notice of hearing before an administrative law
judge were duly served on the parties to this pro-
ceeding.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the
complaint alleges in substance that on January 21,
1980, following a Board election in Case 4-RC-
13662, the Union was duly certified as the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of Respon-
dent's employees in the unit found appropriate,'
and that, commencing on or about January 25,
1980, and at all times thereafter, Respondent has
refused, and continues to date to refuse, to bargain
collectively with the Union as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative, although the Union has re-
quested and is requesting it to do so. On May 9,
1980, Respondent filed its answer to the complaint
admitting in part, and denying in part, the matters
alleged therein and stating certain affirmative de-
fenses.
On June 2, 1980, counsel for the General Coun-
sel filed directly with the Board a Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment. Subsequently, on June 5, 1980, the
Board issued an order transferring the proceeding
to the Board and a Notice To Show Cause why
the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judg-
ment should not be granted. Respondent thereafter
Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceed-
ing, Case 4-RC-3662, as the term "record" is defined in Sees. 102.68 and
102.6 9(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. See
LTV Electrosystems, Inc., 166 NLRB 938 (1967), enfd 388 F.2d 683 (4th
Cir 1968); Golden Age Beverage Co., 167 NLRB 151 (1967), enfd. 415
251 NLRB No. 60
filed a response to Notice To Show Cause and a
memorandum in opposition to the General Coun-
sel's Motion for Summary Judgment. In addition,
Respondent moved that the complaint be dismissed
or, in the alternative, that it be remanded for hear-
ing.
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.
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, response to the
Notice To Show Cause, and memorandum in oppo-
sition to the Motion for Summary Judgment, Re-
spondent, in substance, agrees that the Union is the
certified bargaining representative and that it has
refused the Union's demand for bargaining, but it
attacks the validity of the Union's certification on
the grounds that the Board improperly overruled
its objections to the election in the underlying rep-
resentation proceeding.
Review of the record herein, including that in
the representation proceeding, Case 4-RC-13662,
establishes that, pursuant to a Stipulation for Certi-
fication Upon Consent Election, an election was
conducted among certain of Respondent's employ-
ees on June 8, 1979, which the Union won by a
vote of five to three; there were no challenged bal-
lots. Respondent filed timely objections to conduct
affecting the results of the election, alleging that
certain preelection conduct by union adherents in-
terfered with the employees' exercise of a free
choice of bargaining representative. The Regional
Director ordered a hearing on these objections,
which was held on June 29, 1979.
On September 19, 1979, the Hearing Officer
issued her Report on Objections in which she con-
cluded that Respondent's objections were without
sufficient merit to warrant setting aside the elec-
tion. Thereafter, Respondent filed timely excep-
tions and a supporting brief. On January 21, 1980,
the Board, after reviewing the record in light of
Respondent's exceptions and brief, found that the
exceptions raised no material or substantial issues
of law or fact that would warrant a reversal of the
Hearing Officer's recommendations, adopted the
Hearing Officer's findings and recommendations,
F.2d 26 (5th Cir. 1969); Intertype Co. v. Penello, 269 F.Supp. 573
(D.C.Va. 1967); Follett Corp., 164 NLRB 378 (1967), enfd. 397 F.2d 91
(7th Cir. 1968); Sec. 9(d) of the NLRA, as amended.
HONEYWELL, INC 383
and certified the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of Respondent's employ-
ees. 2
It is well settled that in the absence of newly dis-
covered or previously unavailable evidence or spe-
cial circumstances a respondent in a proceeding al-
leging 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 proceed-
ing were or could have been litigated in the prior
representation proceeding, and Respondent does
not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discov-
ered or previously unavailable evidence, nor does
it allege that any special circumstances exist herein
which would require the Board to reexamine the
decision made in the representation proceeding. We
therefore find that Respondent has not raised any
issue which is properly litigable in this unfair labor
practice proceeding. Accordingly, we grant the
Motion for Summary Judgment, and deny Re-
spondent's motion for dismissal of the complaint or,
in the alternative, for a hearing.
On the basis of the entire record, the Board
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Delaware corporation, is licensed
to do business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylva-
nia, where it maintains a warehouse for the receipt
and distribution of equipment. During the past
year, which is a representative period, Respondent
received at its Levittown, Pennsylvania, facility
goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from
points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
and shipped goods valued in excess of $50,000 from
its Levittown, Pennsylvania, facility to points di-
rectly outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Re-
spondent 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
Highway Truck Drivers and Helpers Local 107,
affiliated with the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
' The Board's Decision and Certification of Representative is not re-
ported in volumes of Board Decisions.
See Pfnsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. N.LR.B., 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941);
Rules and Regulations of the Board. Secs. 102.67(f) and 102.69(c).
of America, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
111. THE UNFAIR I.ABOR PRACTICES
A. The Representation Proceeding
1. The unit
The following employees of Respondent consti-
tute a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining
purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
All leadmen warehousemen, warehousemen,
and drivers working at Respondent's facility
now located at 1991 Hartell Street, Levittown,
Pennsylvania, but excluding all office clerical
employees, professional employees, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other
employees.
2. The certification
On June 8, 1979, a majority of the employees of
Respondent in said unit, in a secret-ballot election
conducted under the supervision of the Regional
Director for Region 4, designated the said Union as
their representative for the purpose of collective
bargaining with Respondent. The Union was certi-
fied as the collective-bargaining representative of
the employees in said unit on January 21, 1980, and
the Union continues to be such exclusive represen-
tative within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the
Act.
B. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's
Refusal
Commencing on or about January 23, 1980, and
at all times thereafter, the Union has requested Re-
spondent to bargain collectively with it as the ex-
clusive collective-bargaining representative of all
the employees in the above-described unit. Com-
mencing on or about January 25, 1980, and con-
tinuing at all times thereafter to date, Respondent
has refused, and continues to refuse, to recognize
and bargain with the Union as the exclusive repre-
sentative for collective bargaining of all employees
in said unit.
Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since
January 25, 1980, and at all times thereafter, re-
fused to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the ap-
propriate unit, and that, by such refusal, Respon-
dent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act.
HONEYWELL. INC. 83
384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with its oper-
ations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf-
fic, and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of com-
merce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging 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, bargain 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 period of certi-
fication as beginning on the date Respondent com-
mences to bargain in good faith with the Union as
the recognized bargaining representative in the ap-
propriate 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;
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. Honeywell, Inc., is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. Highway Truck Drivers and Helpers Local
107, affiliated with the International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All leadmen warehousemen, warehousemen,
and drivers working at Respondent's facility now
located at 1991 Hartell Street, Levittown, Pennsyl-
vania, but excluding all office clerical employees,
professional employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act, and all other employees, consti-
tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act.
4. Since January 21, 1980, the above-named labor
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 25, 1980, and
at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with
the above-named labor organization as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of all the employees
of Respondent in the appropriate uniT, Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices 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 thereby has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) 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 Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Honeywell, Inc., Levittown, Pennsylvania, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning
rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment with Highway Truck
Drivers and Helpers Local 107, affiliated with the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as
the exclusive bargaining representative of its em-
ployees in the following appropriate unit:
All leadmen warehousemen, warehousemen,
and drivers working at Respondent's facility
now located at 1991 Hartell Street, Levittown,
Pennsylvania, but excluding all office clerical
employees, professional employees, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other
employees.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise 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:
HONEYWELL. INC. .385
(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 understanding is reached, embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its Levittown, Pennsylvania, plant
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 4
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 4, 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-
dent to insure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 4, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
4 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals. he sords in the notice reading "Posted h,
Order of the National Labor Relations iBoard"shall read Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National 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
concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment
with Highway Truck Drivers and Helpers
Local 107, affiliated with the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, as the ex-
clusive representative of the employees in the
bargaining unit described below.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ-
ees 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 employees in the bargaining unit
described 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 leadmen warehousemen, warehousemen,
and drivers working at our facility now lo-
cated at 1991 Hartell Street, Levittown,
Pennsylvania, but excluding all office cleri-
cal employees, professional employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act,
and all other employees.
HONEYWELL, INC.
HONEYELL, INC. 3