Maywood Do-Nut Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 12, 1981

256 N.L.R.B. 507 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

MAYWOOD DO-NUT CO, INC. 507
Maywood Do-Nut Co., Inc. and Local 27, Bakery,
Confectionery & Tobacco Workers' Internation-
al Union of America, AFL-CIO. Case 21-CA-
18569
June 12, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
On the basis of a charge filed by Local 37,
Bakery, Confectionery & Tobacco Workers' Inter-
national Union of America, AFL-CIO, hereafter
referred to as the Union, on January 10, 1980, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board, by the Regional Director for Region 21,
issued a complaint against Maywood Do-Nut Co.,
Inc., hereafter referred to as Respondent, on March
19, 1980. The complaint alleges that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by fail-
ing to honor the Union's request, on and after De-
cember 11, 1979, to furnish certain detailed wage,
benefit, and job description information for each
employee in the certified bargaining unit. Respond-
ent filed an answer to the complaint on April 1,
1980, in which it admitted certain of the allega-
tions, but denied the commission of any unfair
labor practices.
On October 29, 1980, the parties entered into a
stipulation to transfer this proceeding to the Board
wherein they agreed thatcertain documents would
constitute the entire record herein, waived all im-
mediate proceedings before an administrative law
judge, and submitted this case directly to the Board
for it to make findings of fact and conclusions of
law and to issue its Decision and Order. On Febru-
ary 5, 1981, the Board approved the stipulation and
set a date for the parties to file their briefs. There-
after briefs were timely filed by Respondent and
the General Counsel.
The Board has considered the entire record
herein, as stipulated to by the parties, as well as the
briefs, and makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Maywood Do-Nut Co., Inc., is a California cor-
poration engaged in the manufacturing and whole-
saling of bakery products at its facility located in
Huntington Park, California. Respondent annually
sells and ships goods and products valued in excess
of $50,000 to customers located within the State of
California, each of which, in turn, annually pur-
chases and receives goods and products valued in
excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers located
outside the State of California. The parties stipulat-
ed, and we find, that Respondent is, and at all
times material herein has been, an employer en-
256 NLRB No. 72
gaged in commerce and in a business affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
Union is, and at all times material herein has been,
a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
111. THE UNFAIR ABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
The parties have agreed, by stipulation, that all
the production and maintenance employees, includ-
ing shipping and receiving employees and truck-
drivers, employed by Respondent at its Huntington
Park, California, facility, excluding office clerical
employees, professional employees, guards and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act, constitute an ap-
propriate unit for collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
On July 26, 1977, a majority of the employees in
this unit selected, in a Board-conducted election,
the Union as their collective-bargaining representa-
tive. On September 17, 1977, the Regional Director
for Region 21 certified the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative. On December
5, 1979, Administrative Law Judge Bernard J. Seff
issued a Decision in which he found that Respond-
ent had violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
by engaging in dilatory and surface bargaining by
failing to meet with the Union at reasonable times
and places, by refusing to present counterproposals,
and by utilizing negotiators with no authority to
make bargaining concessions. Shortly thereafter, on
December 11, 1979, the Union requested that Re-
spondent furnish it with certain information con-
cerning each unit member: Name and address, se-
niority date, wage rate, earnings for the last 2-
month period, description of fringe benefits, vaca-
tion benefits, holiday benefits and holidays ob-
served, job title, job description, and any other
benefits of employment. The instant complaint
issued on March 19, 1980, following the Union's
charge that since December 11, 1979, Respondent
has failed to comply with this request for informa-
tion.
Respondent filed exceptions to the Administra-
tive Law Judge's Decision, contending that the
Union was not the collective-bargaining representa-
tive of a majority of the employees in the agreed-
upon unit. On March 17, 1980, the Board issued its
Decision and Order, 248 NLRB 529, in which it af-
firmed the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the
Administrative Law Judge and adopted his recom-
MAYWOOD D -NUT CO., INC.
508 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mended Order. Upon Respondent's refusal to
comply with the bargaining order, the Board has
sought enforcement of its Order in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
B. Contentions of the Parties
Respondent argues that its continued refusal to
bargain pending the outcome of the case presently
before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals does not
constitute an additional violation of Section 8(a)(5).
Respondent would have the Board either dismiss
the instant complaint or remand it to the Regional
Director until the court renders its judgment.
In accord with its position in the pending en-
forcement proceeding, Respondent claims a con-
tinuing good-faith doubt as to the Union's majority
status. Further, Respondent argues that the instant
8(a)(5) complaint unfairly subjects it to a multiplic-
ity of suits based on a single issue which will not
fully be resolved until the court renders a decision
in 248 NLRB 529. Dismissal of the instant com-
plaint is thus warranted in order to avoid "harrass-
ment" of Respondent.
The General Counsel asserts that Respondent has
an obligation to provide information needed by a
bargaining representative for the proper perform-
ance of its duties.' Since the information sought
here by the Union concerns the terms and condi-
tions of employment of bargaining unit employees,
no special showing of relevance or necessity is re-
quired.2
With respect to Respondent's contention that it
is relieved of its bargaining obligation because of a
good-faith doubt as to the Union's majority status,
the General Counsel points out that this defense
was raised before the Board and found to be with-
out merit in the prior case of 248 NLRB 529. The
General Counsel cites Tiidee Products, Inc., 174
NLRB 705 (1969), for the proposition that pending
charges or unfair labor practice proceedings do not
relieve a party from its bargaining obligations.
C. Discussion and Conclusions
We agree with the General Counsel that the in-
formation sought by the Union dealing with wage
rates and employee benefits is presumptively rele-
vant. Respondent has offered nothing to rebut this
presumption. We therefore conclude that Respond-
ent's refusal to furnish the requested information to
the Union, the certified representative of its em-
s L.R.B. v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967); NL.R.B. v.
Truitt Manufacturing Co., 351 U.S. 149 (1956).
2 Ohio Power Company, 216 NLRB 987 (1975), enfd. 531 F.2d 1381 (6th
Cir. 1976); Robert J Weber and Richard K. Weber d/b/a lWeber Veneer &
Plywood Company, 161 NLRB 1054 (1966); Curtiss-Wright Corporation.
Wright Aeronautical Division, 145 NLRB 152 (1963).
ployees, constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act.
With respect to Respondent's request to dismiss
the complaint or, in the alternative, to stay these
proceedings pending a determination in 248 NLRB
529 by the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, the request is denied. It is settled
law that the pendency of collateral litigation does
not suspend a respondent's duty to bargain under
Section 8(a)(5).3
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in an
unfair labor practice, we shall order it to cease and
desist therefrom and, affirmatively, to take certain
action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Maywood Do-Nut Co., Inc., is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 37, Bakery Confectionery & Tobacco
Workers' Internation Union of America, AFL-
CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By refusing the Union's request for certain
necessary and relevant information on and after
December 11, 1979, Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practice affects
commerce within the meaning 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 the Respondent,
Maywood Do-Nut Co., Inc., Huntington Park,
California, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to Bargain in good faith with the
Union by refusing to furnish necessary and relevant
requested information, detailed below, concerning
employees' wages, benefits, and job descriptions.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
3 Keller Aluminum Chairs Southern. Inc., and Keller Ladders Southern.
Inc.. subsidiaries of Keller Industries, Inc., 173 NLRB 947 (1968), citing in
fn. 14 Board and court decisions. See also Great Dane Trailers Inc., 191
NLRB 6 (1971); Porto Kamp Manufacturing Company, Inc., 189 NLRB
899 (1971); and Sec. IO(g) of the Act, which provides: "The commence-
ment of proceedings under subsection (e) or ( of this section shall not.,
unless specifically ordered by the court, operate as a stay of the Board's
order."
MAYWOOD DO-NUT CO., INC. 509
ercise of the right guaranteed them by Section 7 of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action deemed
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively and in
good faith with Local 37, Bakery, Confectionery &
Tobacco Workers' International Union of America,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of the employees in the unit set forth below,
by furnishing the said labor organization with the
following information it has requested with respect
to each unit employee: Name and address, seniority
date, wage rate, earnings for the last 2-month
period, description of fringe benefits, vacation
benefits, holiday benefits and holidays observed,
job title, job description, and any other benefits of
employment. The appropriate bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees, in-
cluding shipping and receiving employees and
truckdrivers employed by Respondent at its fa-
cility located at 6174 Maywood Avenue, Hun-
tington Park, California, excluding office cleri-
cal employees, professional employees, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Post at its Huntington Park, California, facili-
ty copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix." 4 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 21, after being
duly signed by Respondent's authorized representa-
tive, shall be posted 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 21,
in writing, within 20 days from the date of this
Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to
comply herewith.
4 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 Boars" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
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 in good
faith with Local 37, Bakery, Confectionery &
Tobacco Workers' International Union of
America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargain-
ing representative of the employees in the unit
set forth below, by refusing to furnish the said
labor organization with necessary and relevant
information it has requested with respect to all
unit employees of Maywood Do-Nut Co., Inc.,
as hereinafter set forth in this notice.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively
and in good faith with Local 37, Bakery, Con-
fectionery & Tobacco Workers' International
Union of America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the employees in
the unit set forth below, by furnishing the said
labor organization with the following informa-
tion it has requested with respect to each unit
employee: Name and address, seniority date,
wage rate, earnings for the last 2-month
period, description of fringe benefits, vacation
benefits, holiday benefits and holidays ob-
served, job title, job description, and any other
benefits of employment. The appropriate unit
is:
All production and maintenance employees,
including shipping and receiving employees
and truckdrivers employed by us at our fa-
cility located at 6174 Maywood Avenue,
Huntington Park, California, excluding
office clerical employees, professional em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
MAYWOOD Do-NUT Co., INC.
MAYWOOD DO-NUT CO., NC. 09