Howard Plating Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 16, 1979

243 N.L.R.B. 482 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Howard Plating Industries, Inc. and International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America, UAW. Case
7-CA 14153
July 16, 1979
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND PFNELI.O
On August 31, 1977, the National Labor Relations
Board issued its Decision and Order in the above-
entitled proceeding,' finding that Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to
bargain collectively with International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, UAW (herein called the
Union), as the exclusive representative of the employ-
ees in the appropriate unit.2
l231 NLRB 1159.
2 Respondent is a Michigan corporation engaged in providing electroplat-
ing services for various manufacturing concerns On June 24. 1976. pursuant
to a Stipulation for Certification Upon (onsentl Election. a majority of the
employees of Respondent in an appropriate unit, in a secret-ballot election
conducted under the supervision of the Regional Director for Region 7,
designated the Union as their representative for the purposes of, collective
bargaining with Respondent. The Union prevailed by a vote of 27 to 21, with
3 challenged ballots. Respondent filed timely bjections. Alter an invesliga-
tion conducted by the Regional Director fr Region 7, the Regional Director
granted Respondent's request to withdrawal certain of the objections and
recommended that the remaining objections be overruled and an appropriate
certification issue, applying the principles of Holl6,w ood Ceramics C(onmpanv.
Inc., 140 NLRB 221 (1962). On May 17, 1977. the Board issued a Decision
and Certification of Representative. accepting the recommendations of the
Regional Director and certifying the Ulnion as the collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of the employees in the appropriate unit. In doing so, Member
Penello and then Member Walther accepted the Regional Director's recom-
mendations for the reasons set forth in Shopping Karl Food Marketr In. 228
NLRB 1311 (1977). wherein the Board in:rIority overruled HolIvwood Ce-
ramics, supra. Member Jenkins, who dissented in Shopping Krl, supra,
agreed with the conclusion that the objections should be overruled n view of
the Regional Director's application of the principles of Hll, sood Ceramis .
supra.
Thereafter, on June 28. 1977, General Counsel issued a complaint in the
above-captioned matter on a charge filed by the Union on June 22. 1977,
alleging that since on or about June 7, 1977. Respondent has refused and
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 decided, sua sponte, to reconsider
this case in light of its recent decision in General Knit
of California. Inc., 239 NLRB 619 (1978), wherein the
Board overruled Shopping Karl fhood Market, Inc.,
228 NLRB 1311 (1977), and decided to return to the
rule of Hollywood 'eramnics C(ompany, Inc.. 140
NLRB 221 (1962), in considering alleged misrepre-
sentations of parties during the preelection period.
We have reconsidered and have decided to reaffirm
our original Decision inasmuch as the Regional Di-
rector properly overruled the objections herein under
the standards set forth in Hollywood Ceramics, supra,
which standards we now adhere to in accord with our
decision in General Knit, supra.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby affirms as its Order, the Order
heretofore entered in this proceeding on August 31,
1977.
MI1MBIR PNI.i I. (0, concurring:
For the reasons set forth in my dissents in General
Knit3 and BcAnan-UJhler I would reaffirm our origi-
nal Decision. I continue to adhere to the sound prin-
ciples of Shopping Karl.5
continues to refuse to hbarga in collectlively with the nion as the exclusive
collective-bargaining g represent.tie although the Union has requested and is
requesting it to do so. On Jul 7. 1977. Respondent filed its answer to the
complaint admiltting i1 part nd denying in part the allegations of the com-
plaint.
On July I18 1977, (ieneral (Counsel filed with the Board a Motion for
Summary Judgment Ihereafter. on August 31, 1977, the National Labor
Relations Board issued it,, aboe-mentioned l)ecision and Order whereby it
granted the Motion lir Suimmary Judgment.
General hnlr oa (aliJornia, Inc 239 NLRB 619 (1978).
B4 lat-kman-Ihlr (Chemical Disioln Snalloh, (Corpration, 239 NLRB
637 (19781.
Shopping Kuarl Fold 4arket. Inc., 228 NLRB 1311 (1
97 7
1.
243 NLRB No. 69
482