Maremont Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 31, 1997

325 N.L.R.B. 29 (N.L.R.B. 1997)

1
325 NLRB No. 29
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication
in the Board volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to
notify the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
Washington, D.C. 20570, of any typographical or other formal er-
rors so that corrections can be included in the bound volumes.
Maremont Corporation/a Division of Arvin Indus-
tries and International Association of Machin-
ists & Aerospace Workers, AFL–CIO. Case 10–
CA–30577
December 31, 1997
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS FOX AND
LIEBMAN
Pursuant to a charge and amended charge filed on
October 14 and 21, 1997, the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint on
October 31, 1997, alleging that the Respondent has
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor
Relations Act by refusing the Union’s request to bar-
gain and to furnish information following the Union’s
certification in Case 10–RC–14720. (Official notice is
taken of the ‘‘record’’ in the representation proceeding
as defined in the Board’s Rules and Regulations, Secs.
102.68 and 102.69(g); Frontier Hotel, 265 NLRB 343
(1982).) The Respondent filed an answer admitting in
part and denying in part the allegations in the com-
plaint.
On November 24, 1997, the General Counsel filed
a Motion for Summary Judgment. On November 26,
1997, the Board issued an order transferring the pro-
ceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why
the motion should not be granted. The Respondent
filed a response.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
In its answer the Respondent admits its refusal to
bargain and to furnish information that is relevant and
necessary to the Union’s role as bargaining representa-
tive, but attacks the validity of the certification on the
basis of its objections to the election in the representa-
tion proceeding.
All representation issues raised by the Respondent
were or could have been litigated in the prior represen-
tation proceeding. The Respondent does not offer to
adduce at a hearing any newly discovered and pre-
viously unavailable evidence, nor does it allege any
special circumstances that would require the Board to
reexamine the decision made in the representation pro-
ceeding. We therefore find that the Respondent has not
raised any representation issue that is properly litigable
in this unfair labor practice proceeding. See Pittsburgh
Plate Glass Co. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941).
Accordingly, we grant the Motion for Summary Judg-
ment.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent, a Delaware
corporation, with an office and place of business in
Loudon, Tennessee, has been engaged in the manufac-
ture of exhaust systems for the automotive industry.
During the 12-month period preceding issuance of the
complaint, the Respondent, in the course and conduct
of its business operations, purchased and received
goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 di-
rectly from suppliers located outside the State of Ten-
nessee. We find that the Respondent is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act and that the Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Certification
Following the election held August 9, 1996, the
Union was certified on September 23, 1997, as the ex-
clusive collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the following appropriate unit:
All full-time and regular part-time production and
hourly maintenance employees, except temporary
employees employed by the Respondent at its
Loudon, Tennessee facility, excluding office cleri-
cal employees, professional, salaried maintenance,
temporary employees, guards and supervisors, in-
cluding as supervisors all team leaders, as defined
in the Act.
The Union continues to be the exclusive representative
under Section 9(a) of the Act.
B. Refusal to Bargain
Since about October 1, 1997, the Union has re-
quested the Respondent to bargain and to furnish infor-
mation, and, since about October 9, 1997, the Re-
spondent has refused. We find that this refusal con-
stitutes an unlawful refusal to bargain in violation of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By refusing on and after October 9, 1997, to bargain
with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of employees in the appropriate unit and
to furnish the Union requested information, the Re-
spondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affect-
ing commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 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
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.’’
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall order it to
cease and desist, to bargain on request with the Union,
and, if an understanding is reached, to embody the un-
derstanding in a signed agreement. We also shall order
the Respondent to furnish the Union in a timely fash-
ion the information requested about October 1, 1997.
To ensure that the employees are accorded the serv-
ices of their selected bargaining agent for the period
provided by the law, we shall construe the initial pe-
riod of the certification as beginning the date the Re-
spondent begins to bargain in good faith with the
Union. Mar-Jac Poultry Co., 136 NLRB 785 (1962);
Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328
F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817
(1964); Burnett Construction Co., 149 NLRB 1419,
1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th Cir. 1965).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Maremont Corporation/A Division of
Arvin Industries, Loudon, Tennessee, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain with International Associa-
tion of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL–CIO as
the exclusive bargaining representative of the employ-
ees in the bargaining unit and refusing to furnish the
Union information that is relevant and necessary to its
role as the exclusive bargaining representative of the
unit employees.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclu-
sive representative of the employees in the following
appropriate unit on terms and conditions of employ-
ment, and if an understanding is reached, embody the
understanding in a signed agreement:
All full-time and regular part-time production and
hourly maintenance employees, except temporary
employees employed by the Respondent at its
Loudon, Tennessee facility, excluding office cleri-
cal employees, professional, salaried maintenance,
temporary employees, guards and supervisors, in-
cluding as supervisors all team leaders, as defined
in the Act.
(b) Furnish to the Union in a timely fashion the in-
formation it requested in its letter dated October 1,
1997, information that is relevant and necessary to its
role as the exclusive representative of the unit employ-
ees.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post
at its facility in Loudon, Tennessee, copies of the at-
tached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’1 Copies of the no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 10 after being signed by the Respondent’s au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by the Re-
spondent 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 no-
tices 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 involved in these pro-
ceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at
its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current
employees and former employees employed by the Re-
spondent at any time since October 9, 1997.
(d) 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.
Dated, Washington, D.C. December 31, 1997
llllllllllllllllll
William B. Gould IV, Chairman
llllllllllllllllll
Sarah M. Fox, Member
llllllllllllllllll
Wilma B. Liebman, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with International
Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers,
AFL–CIO as the exclusive representative of the em-
3MAREMONT CORP.
ployees in the bargaining unit and WE WILL NOT refuse
to furnish the Union information that is relevant and
necessary to its role as the exclusive bargaining rep-
resentative of the unit 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.
WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Union and
put in writing and sign any agreement reached on
terms and conditions of employment for our employees
in the bargaining unit:
All full-time and regular part-time production and
hourly maintenance employees, except temporary
employees employed by us at our Loudon, Ten-
nessee facility, excluding office clerical employ-
ees, professional, salaried maintenance, temporary
employees, guards and supervisors, including as
supervisors all team leaders, as defined in the Act.
WE WILL furnish to the Union in a timely fashion
the information it requested in its letter dated October
1, 1997, information that is relevant and necessary to
its role as the exclusive representative of the unit em-
ployees.
MAREMONT CORPORATION/A DIVISION
OF ARVIN INDUSTRIES