Matlack, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 31, 1997

322 N.L.R.B. 181 (N.L.R.B. 1997)

1
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.
Matlack, Inc. and Teamsters Local 469, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO.
Case 22–CA–21683
January 31, 1997
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS BROWNING
AND FOX
Pursuant to a charge filed on November 13, 1996,
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board issued a complaint on November 22, 1996, al­
leging that the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refus­
ing the Union’s request to bargain following the
Union’s certification in Case 22–RC–11123. (Official
notice is taken of the ‘‘record’’ in the representation
proceeding as defined in the Board’s Rules and Regu­
lations, Secs. 102.68 and 102.69(g); Frontier Hotel,
265 NLRB 343 (1982).) The Respondent filed an an­
swer admitting in part and denying in part the allega­
tions in the complaint.
On December 12, 1996, the General Counsel filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment. On December 16,
1996, 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. On January 9, 1997,
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 and response, the Respondent admits
its refusal to bargain, but attacks the validity of the
certification on the basis of its objections to the elec­
tion in the representation proceeding.1
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-
1 The basis for the Respondent’s objections was that Ronald
McKee was a supervisor and interfered with the election. The Board
affirmed the hearing officer’s findings that McKee was not a super-
visor. In its response, the Respondent also argues, for the first time,
that McKee was a statutory agent of the Respondent. Having failed
to raise that contention in the representation proceeding, the Re­
spondent is precluded from raising this new contention in the instant
proceeding. In any event, the Respondent has failed to provide any
support in its response for its new contention.
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 corporation,
with an office and place of business in Elizabeth, New
Jersey, has been engaged in the interstate transpor­
tation of chemicals and hazardous materials. During
the 12-month period preceding the issuance of the
complaint, the Respondent, in conducting its business
operations described above, shipped from its Elizabeth,
New Jersey facility goods valued in excess of $50,000
directly to points outside the State of New Jersey. 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 on November 3, 1995,
the Union was certified on July 24, 1996, as the exclu­
sive collective-bargaining representative of the employ­
ees in the following appropriate unit:
All full-time and regular part-time loaders em­
ployed by Respondent at its Elizabeth, New Jer­
sey facility, excluding all office clerical employ­
ees, managerial employees, professional employ­
ees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act,
and all other employees.
The Union continues to be the exclusive representative
under Section 9(a) of the Act.
B. Refusal to Bargain
Since August 2, 1996, the Union has requested the
Respondent to bargain and, since August 23, 1996, the
Respondent 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 August 23, 1996, to bar-
gain with the Union as the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of employees in the appropriate
unit, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac­
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec­
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
322 NLRB No. 181
2 DECISIONS 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.
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, Matlack, Inc., Elizabeth, New Jersey, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain with Teamsters Local 469,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO, as
the exclusive bargaining representative of the employ­
ees in the bargaining unit.
(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 loaders em­
ployed by Respondent at its Elizabeth, New Jer­
sey facility, excluding all office clerical employ­
ees, managerial employees, professional employ­
ees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act,
and all other employees.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post
at its facility in Elizabeth, New Jersey, copies of the
attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’2 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 22, 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
2 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.’’
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 November 13, 1996.
(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.
Dated, Washington, D.C. January 31, 1997
������������������
William B. Gould IV, Chairman
������������������
Margaret A. Browning, Member
������������������
Sarah M. Fox, 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 Teamsters
Local 469, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
AFL–CIO, as the exclusive representative of the em­
ployees in the bargaining unit.
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 loaders em­
ployed by us at our Elizabeth, New Jersey facility,
excluding all office clerical employees, manage-
rial employees, professional employees, guards
MATLACK, INC. 3
and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all
other employees.
MATLACK, INC.