Kranz Heating & Cooling

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 11, 1999

328 N.L.R.B. 401 (N.L.R.B. 1999)

KRANZ HEATING & COOLING 401
Illinois Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc. d/b/a
Kranz Heating & Cooling and Sheet Metal
Workers’ International Association, Local Un-
ion 265. Case 13–CA–36388
May 11, 1999
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN TRUESDALE AND MEMBERS HURTGEN
AND BRAME
On December 15, 1998, Administrative Law Judge
Bruce D. Rosenstein issued the attached decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and
the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed an-
swering briefs.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, and conclusions and
to adopt the recommended Order as modified.1
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, Illinois Heating and Air
Conditioning, Inc. d/b/a Kranz Heating & Cooling, Villa
Park, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a).
“(a) Furnish to the Union the information it requested
on June 13, 1997.”
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the admin-
istrative law judge.

APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to
post and abide by this notice.

WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Sheet
Metal Workers’ International Association, Local Union
265, by refusing to furnish it, on request, with informa-
tion necessary for, and relevant to the Union’s function
as the exclusive bargaining representative of certain of
our employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.

1 We have modified the judge’s recommended Order to require the
Respondent to provide the Union with the information that it has re-
quested, without the necessity of making a new request. See I & F
Corp., 322 NLRB 1037, 1037 fn. 1 (1997).
WE WILL furnish the Union with the information it re-
quested on June 13, 1997.

ILLINOIS HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING, INC.
D/B/A KRANZ HEATING & COOLING
Richard S. Andrews, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Richard L. Marcus, Esq. and Ellen P. Zivitz, Esq., of Chicago,
Illinois, for the Respondent-Employer.
Stephen J. Rosenblat, Esq., of Chicago, Illinois, for the Charg-
ing Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BRUCE D. ROSENSTEIN, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was tried before me in Chicago, Illinois, on July 22 and
23, 1998, pursuant to a complaint and notice of hearing (the
complaint) issued on April 8, 1998, and an amendment to the
complaint on July 10, 1998, by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 13 of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board). The
complaint, based on a charge filed on September 15, 1997,
1
by
Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association, Local Union
265 (the Union or Charging Party), alleges that Illinois Heating
and Air Conditioning, Inc. d/b/a Kranz Heating & Cooling (the
Respondent or Employer)2 has engaged in certain violations of
Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act (the
Act).3
Issues
The complaint alleges that the Respondent refused to provide
necessary and relevant information to the Union for the per-
formance of its duties as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of the unit in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the
Act.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed
by the General Counsel, Charging Party, and Respondent, I
make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent, a corporation, is engaged in the service of
heating and air conditioning, with an office and place of busi-
ness in Villa Park, Illinois, where during 1996 it derived gross
revenues in excess of $500,000 and performed services valued
in excess of $50,000 for companies directly engaged in inter-
state commerce. The Respondent admits and I find that it is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that the Union is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Even
if the Respondent went out of business on November 25, 1996,
based on its admission that it satisfied the Board’s jurisdictional
standards for 1996, the Board has jurisdiction over the Respon-
1
All dates are in 1997 unless otherwise indicated.
2 During the course of the hearing, the General Counsel and the Re-
spondent agreed to amend the complaint to change the name of the
Employer from Kranz Heating & Cooling, Inc. d/b/a Kranz Mechanical
to the above.
3 The General Counsel amended par. 7 of the complaint, during the
course of the hearing, to include an 8(a)(1) allegation.
328 NLRB No. 52
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 402
dent. See Benchmark Industries, 269 NLRB 1096, 1097–1098
(1984).
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
Respondent has been in the heating and air-conditioning
business for approximately 30 years and for the pertinent period
was owned and operated by President James R. Schaaf. Since
at least August 1, 1992, until November 25, 1996, when the
Respondent went out of business, the Union has been the des-
ignated exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the
unit employees. This recognition has been embodied in succes-
sive collective-bargaining agreements, the most recent of which
was effective from June 1, 1996, to May 31, 1999.
On November 26, 1996, a number of Respondent’s employ-
ees reported to work around 6:30 a.m. at the 305 W. North
Avenue location and were unable to enter the premises. Shortly
thereafter Schaaf arrived at the facility, opened the locked door,
and called the assembled employees to a meeting in his office.
Schaaf announced that the employees services were no longer
needed as he sold the union branch of the Company and re-
quested the employees to remove their tools from the company
trucks before returning home in taxi cabs provided by Respon-
dent. On that same day, Schaaf telephoned Union Business
Manager George Slater and informed him that because he sold
his business, he intended to shut down the 305 W. North Ave-
nue location, and terminate all the union employees.
Employee Jeff Trucksa testified that while working at Re-
spondent in the fall of 1996, he observed invoices and contracts
that said Illinois Heating and Air Conditioning d/b/a/ Kranz
Heating & Cooling, while other contracts showed a caption of
Kranz Heating & Cooling and Kranz Mechanical. Approxi-
mately 1 week after Trucksa was laid off, he received a tele-
phone call from Schaaf, who inquired if he would work for him
as a union subcontractor and complete a job that he previously
worked on before the layoff. Trucksa declined the offer.
Between December 1996 and early 1997, Slater was in-
formed by several of the laid-off employees that Respondent’s
trucks were taking equipment in and out of the North Avenue
location. He also was provided with a copy of a February 23
Chicago Tribune newspaper ad, that sought business and de-
picted a picture of a truck identical to the type used by Respon-
dent before the layoff with the same telephone number for the
North Avenue location. In January 1997, Slater learned from
his accountants that during the second quarter of 1996, Kranz
Heating & Cooling, Inc. became Illinois Heating & Air Condi-
tioning, Inc. Then in November 1996, Illinois Heating & Air
Conditioning, Inc. and another company owned by Schaaf,
Kranz Mechanical, was purchased by American Residential
Services, to which Schaaf became a stockholder.
In March 1997, Trucksa observed Respondent trucks driving
in the neighborhood streets and credibly testified that the color-
ing and lettering of the trucks was identical to those that he
drove while employed at Respondent. He also observed a
number of the trucks getting gasoline at the same service sta-
tion that he previously used. In early June 1997, Trucksa saw a
number of ads in the Chicago Tribune newspaper showing that
Respondent was advertising for business. He gave the ads to
Slater at the regular scheduled June 10 union meeting, held on
the second Tuesday of each month. Also in June 1997, em-
ployee Kip Costenaro credibly testified that while he drove by
the North Avenue facility he observed Schaaf and salesman
John Pole inside the office. Additionally, in 1997 Costenaro
saw Respondent’s name listed in the telephone directory with
the same number for the North Avenue location.
During the union meeting, a discussion took place concern-
ing what to do as it appeared that Respondent was continuing to
operate its business despite abrogating the parties’ collective-
bargaining agreement and laying off all the union employees.
Slater informed the employees that a questionnaire was being
prepared to determine whether the Employer was still in exis-
tence and operating under a different name. Accordingly, on
June 13, Slater prepared and sent regular and certified mail,
return receipt requested, a “Double-Breasted Questionnaire”
(G.C. Exh. 1) consisting of 67 questions to discern whether
Respondent and the new company were alter egos or joint em-
ployers.4 The Respondent did not reply to or provide the re-
quested information to the Union despite signing the certified
return receipt on June 16 (G.C. Exh. 15). In this regard, an
individual by the name of John Pole signed the receipt and was
identified during the hearing as a salesman employed by Re-
spondent prior to the close of its business on November 25,
1996.
B. Analysis and Conclusions
The General Counsel argues that the Union was entitled to
the information requested in the letter of June 13, and that Re-
spondent’s refusal to fulfill that request violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (5) of the Act. The Respondent opines that the Union has
no bargaining relationship with regard to any new company and
that even if a bargaining obligation exists if the two-firms were
alter egos, the General Counsel has not shown that the Union
had the necessary factual basis for the demand for information
regarding the relationship between Respondent and any new
company.
The Board in Sheraton Hartford Hotel, 289 NLRB 463–464
(1988), set forth the law to be applied in situations like the in-
stant matter:

Section 8(a)(5) obligates an employer to provide a un-
ion requested information. If there is a probability that the
information would be relevant to the union in fulfilling its
statutory duties as bargaining representative. Where the
requested information concerns wage rates, job descrip-
tions, and other information pertaining to employees
within the bargaining unit, the information is presump-
tively relevant. Where the information does not concern
matters pertaining to the bargaining unit, the union must
show that the information is relevant. When the requested
information does not pertain to matters related to the bar-
gaining unit, to satisfy the burden of showing relevance,
the union must offer more than mere suspicion for it to be
entitled to the information.

4 The cover letter was addressed to Jim Schaaf at the North Avenue
location and stated in pertinent part that:
The undersigned is the Business Manager for the Sheet
Metal Workers’ International Association, Local 265. Your
company and Local 265 have been parties to a collective bar-
gaining agreement for the past several years. It is our under-
standing that your company is related to a non-union com-
pany known as Illinois Heating & Air Conditioning. In order
to perform its responsibilities as the exclusive representative
of Kranz Heating and Cooling, Inc.’s employees, the Union
hereby requests that you provide answers to the enclosed
questions no later than June 23, 1997.

KRANZ HEATING & COOLING 403
Also, where as in the instant case, a union has asked an em-
ployer for information to show either an alter ego, or a joint
employer relationship, the union is entitled to such information
if it demonstrates that when it made the request it had “an ob-
jective factual basis for believing that such a relationship ex-
isted. M. Scher & Son, 286 NLRB 688, 691 (1987).
The Union here has clearly satisfied the burden of establish-
ing the relevance of the information that they requested on June
13. They have represented Respondent’s employees for a
number of years and were a party to a viable collective-
bargaining agreement that was executed in June 1996, a period
before the Respondent went out of business. The Union is
entitled to know whether the Respondent legitimately went out
of business as it alleges, or whether Schaaf created a new com-
pany and transferred Respondent’s work in order to pay lower
nonunion wages and be more profitable and/or to get rid of the
Union. Additionally, as set forth in the June 13 cover letter, the
Union sought information in order to perform its responsibili-
ties as the exclusive representative of Respondent’s employees
and to enforce the provisions of the parties’ collective-
bargaining agreement.
I also find that by June 13 the Union had “an objective fac-
tual basis” for believing that the Respondent and the new com-
pany were either joint employers or alter egos of each other,
and therefore, constituted a single employer for purposes of
enforcing the collective-bargaining agreement. Thus, by that
date, the Union knew that the Respondent was operating the
same or similar business from the same location with the same
equipment and telephone number as was previously used prior
to going out of business on November 25, 1996. Moreover, the
Union knew that Schaaf and other former Respondent employ-
ees were involved in running the business and advertised in the
newspaper and telephone directory under the same Kranz Heat-
ing & Cooling name.
Under these circumstances, I find that the Union has shown
that all the information requested in its letter to the Respondent,
dated June 13, was relevant and essential to the performance of
its duty as the collective-bargaining representative of Respon-
dent's employees. I conclude, therefore, that the Respondent,
by failing and refusing to provide all the information requested
by the Union in the letter of June 13, violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (5) of the Act. E. J. Alrich Electrical Contractors, 325
NLRB 1036 (1998).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent has been engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union has been a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By failing and refusing to respond to the Union’s informa-
tion request made on June13, 1997, the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act. In that regard, I shall recommend
that Respondent be ordered to, on request, promptly provide the
Union with the information that it requested on June 13, 1997.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended5
ORDER
The Respondent, Illinois Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc.
d/b/a Kranz Heating & Cooling, Villa Park, Illinois, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain in good faith with Sheet Metal
Workers’ International Association, Local Union 265, by fail-
ing and refusing to furnish it with information that was re-
quested on June 13, 1997, which information is relevant and
necessary to administer the collective-bargaining agreement
that they have with the Respondent.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Furnish to the Union, on request, the information it re-
quested on June 13, 1997.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cility in Villa Park, Illinois, copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”
5 Copies of the notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 13, after being signed by
the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for
60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In
the event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the
Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility in-
volved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and
mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current em-
ployees and former employees employed by the Respondent at
any time since June 13, 1997.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent has taken to comply.

5 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
5
If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”