Magnolia Screw Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 15, 1975

220 N.L.R.B. 316 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

316 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Magnolia Screw Products, Inc. and International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America (UAW). Case
7-CA-11975
September 15, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO
Upon a charge filed on April 30, 1975, by Interna-
tional Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW), herein called the Union, and duly served on
Magnolia Screw Products, Inc., herein called the Re-
spondent, the General Counsel of the National La-
bor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for
Region 7, issued a complaint on May 15, 1975,
against Respondent, alleging that Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practic-
es 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, complaint, and notice of hearing before
an Administrative Law Judge were duly served on
the parties to this proceeding.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the com-
plaint alleges in substance that on January 17, 1975,
following a Board election in Case 7-RC-12649 the
Union was duly certified as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of Respondent's employees
in the unit found appropriate;' and that, commenc-
ing on or about April 18, 1975, and at all times there-
after, Respondent has refused, and continues to date
to refuse, to bargain collectively with the Union as
the exclusive bargaining representative, although the
Union has requested and is requesting it to do so. On
May 28 and June 3, 1975, respectively, Respondent
filed its answer and amended answer to the com-
plaint admitting in part, and denying in part, the alle-
gations in the complaint.
On June 6, 1975, counsel for the General Counsel
filed directly with the Board a Motion for Summary
Judgment. Subsequently, on June 13, 1975, 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 Judgment
'Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding.
Case 7-RC-12649, as the term "record" is defined in Secs. 102.68 and
102.69(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Serves 8 , as amended. See
LTV Electrosystems, Inc, 166 NLRB 938 (1967), enfd 388 F 2d 683 (C.A. 4,
1968); Golden Age Beverage Co., 167 NLRB 151 (1967), enfd . 415 F.2d 26
(C.A. 5, 1969); Intertype Co. v Penello, 269 F.Supp . 573 (D.C. Va, 1967);
Follett Corp., 164 NLRB 378 (1967), enfd. 397 F.2d 91 (C A 7, 1968); Sec.
9(d) of the NLRA.
should not be granted. Respondent thereafter filed a
response to Notice To Show Cause.
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 and amended answer to the com-
plaint and in its response to the Notice To Show
Cause, the Respondent attacks the Union's represen-
tative status and certification on the ground that its
objections to the election were improperly overruled
without a hearing.
Our review of the record herein, including that in
Case 7-RC-12469, reveals that in the election con-
ducted by the Regional Director on November 8,
1974, 21 votes were cast for, and 17 against, the
Union, with 1 ballot challenged. The Respondent
filed timely objections alleging, in substance, that the
Union (1) offered to waive initiation fees; (2) circu-
lated false rumors about employee layoffs and dis-
charge; (3) made promises of benefit; (4) coercively
interrogated employees; and (5) kept an unlawful
surveillance list of employees. After investigation, the
Regional Director on January 17, 1975, issued a Sup-
plemental Decision on Objections and Certification
of Representative in which he overruled the objec-
tions in their entirety and certified the Union. There-
after, the Respondent filed a timely request for re-
view of the Supplemental Decision. It argued that the
Regional Director erred in finding that the objections
were without merit and in refusing to hold a hearing
thereon and it contended that the election should be
set aside or alternatively a hearing be held on its ob-
jections. On March 13, 1975, the Board denied the
Respondent's request for review as it raised no sub-
stantial issues warranting review, thereby necessarily
finding that no hearing was necessary.'
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 reliti-
gate issues which were or could have been litigated in
a prior representation proceeding.'
All issues raised by the Respondent in this pro-
ceeding were or could have been litigated in the prior
representation proceeding, and the Respondent does
not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discov-
2 Raub Supply Company, 215 NLRB No. 75 (1974), Big Three Industries,
Inc, 214 NLRB No. 104 (1974).
J See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co v N L R B., 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941),
Rules and Regulations of the Board , Secs 102,67(f) and 102 69(c)
220 NLRB No. 54
MAGNOLIA SCREW PRODUCTS , INC. 317
ered or previously unavailable evidence, nor does it
allege that any special circumstances 4 exist herein
which would require the Board to reexamine the de-
cision made in the representation proceeding. We
therefore find that the Respondent has not raised
any issue which is properly litigable in this unfair
labor practice proceeding. We shall, accordingly,
grant the Motion for Summary Judgment.
On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
stitute a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining
purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act.
All full-time and regular part-time production
and maintenance employees, including shipping
and receiving employees, quality control em-
ployees and truckdrivers employed by the Em-
ployer at its 32451 North Avis, Madison
Heights, Michigan facility; but excluding all of-
fice clerical employees, professional employees,
technical employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the act.
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Michigan corporation with an of-
fice and place of business at 32451 North Avis, Mad-
ison Heights, Michigan, is engaged in the manufac-
ture, sale, and distribution of screw products and
cold head products. During the calendar year ending
December 31, 1974, a representative period, the Re-
spondent, in the course and conduct of its business
operations, manufactured, sold, and distributed at its
Madison Heights, Michigan, place of business, prod-
ucts valued in excess of $50,000, of which products
valued in excess of $50,000 were shipped from said
place of business directly to points located outside
the State of Michigan.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Re-
spondent is, and has been at all times material here-
in, 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 juris-
diction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aero-
space and Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer-
ica (UAW), is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Representation Proceeding
1. The unit
The following employees of the Respondent con-
4 In its response to the Notice To Show Cause, the Respondent contends
that there are special circumstances warranting relitigation . We do not
agree , as the special circumstances alleged relate to the same matters which
were raised , considered , and resolved in the underlying representation case
and which the Respondent , in effect, seeks to relitigate in the instant pro-
ceeding.
2. The certification
On October 11, 1974, a majority of the employees
of Respondent in said unit, in a secret ballot election
conducted under the supervision of the Regional Di-
rector for Region 7 designated the Union as their
representative for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing with the Respondent. The Union was certified as
the collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in said unit on January 17, 1975, and the
Union continues to be such exclusive representative
within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. The
Union was certified as the collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of the employees in said unit on January
17, 1975, and the Union continues to be such exclu-
sive representative within the meaning of Section 9(a)
of the Act.
B. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's Refusal
Commencing on or about April 14, 1975, and at all
times thereafter, the Union has requested the Re-
spondent to bargain collectively with it as the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of all the
employees in the above-described unit and to pro-
vide it with information concerning employees to fa-
cilitate negotiations. Commencing on or about April
18, 1975, and continuing at all times thereafter to
date, the Respondent has refused, and continues to
refuse, to recognize and bargain with the Union as
the exclusive representative for collective bargaining
of all employees in said unit and to provide the re-
quested information.
Accordingly, we find that the Respondent has,
since April 18, 1975, 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, Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act.
318 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 opera-
tions described in section I, above, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic,
and commerce among the several States and tend to
lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
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 commenc-
es to bargain in good faith with the Union as the
recognized bargaining representative in the appropri-
ate 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
(C.A. 5, 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817 (1964); Bur-
nett Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419, 1421
(1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (C.A. 10, 1965).
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record, makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Magnolia Screw Products, Inc., is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Union, United Automobile, Aero-
space and Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer-
ica (UAW), is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All full-time and regular part-time production
and maintenance employees, including shipping and
receiving employees, quality control employees and
truckdrivers employed by the Employer at its 32451
North Avis, Madison Heights, Michigan facility; but
excluding all office clerical employees, professional
employees, technical employees, guards and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropri-
ate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. Since January 17, 1975, the above -named labor
organization has been and now is the certified and
exclusive representative of all employees in the afore-
said appropriate unit for the purpose of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the
Act.
5. By refusing on or about April 18, 1975, 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 and to provide the
Union with information concerning employees to fa-
cilitate negotiations , Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
6. 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.
7. 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 Re-
lations Board hereby orders that Respondent Mag-
nolia Screw Products, Inc., Madison Heights, Michi-
gan, its officers , 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 con-
ditions of employment with International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Im-
plement Workers of America (UAW), as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of its employees in the
following appropriate unit:
All full-time and regular part-time production
and maintenance employees, including shipping
and receiving employees, quality control em-
ployees and truckdrivers employed by the Em-
ployer at its 32451 North Avis, Madison
Heights, Michigan facility; but excluding all of-
fice clerical employees, professional employees,
technical employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
(b) Refusing to provide the Union with informa-
tion concerning employees to facilitate negotiations.
MAGNOLIA SCREW PRODUCTS, INC.
(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 such under-
standing is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement.
(b) Post at its Madison Heights, Michigan, facili-
ty, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix." S Copies of said notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 7, after being duly
signed by Respondent's representative, shall be post-
ed 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 Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
s In the event that 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 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
319
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 Inter-
national Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of Ameri-
ca (UAW), as the exclusive representative of the
employees in the bargaining unit described be-
low.
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 NOT refuse to provide the Union with
information concerning employees to facilitate
negotiations.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the
above-named Union, as the exclusive represen-
tative of all employees in the bargaining unit de-
scribed below, with respect to rates of pay, wag-
es, 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 full-time and regular part-time produc-
tion and maintenance employees, including
shipping and receiving employees, quality
control employees and truckdrivers employed
by the Employer at its 32451 North Avis,
Madison Heights, Michigan facility; but ex-
cluding all office clerical employees, profes-
sional employees, technical employees, guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
MAGNOLIA SCREW PRODUCTS, INC.