Meyer Label Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 17, 1978

235 N.L.R.B. 157 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

MEYER LABEL CO., INC.
Meyer Label Company, Inc. and Local One, Amalga-
mated Lithographers of America, a/w International
Typographical Union, AFL-CIO. Case 2-CA-
15261
March 17, 1978
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
PENELLO AND MURPHY
Upon a charge filed on November 11, 1977, by
Local One, Amalgamated Lithographers of America,
a/w International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO,
herein called the Union, and duly served on Meyer
Label Company, Inc., herein called Respondent, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board, by the Regional Director for Region 2, issued
a complaint and notice of hearing on December 19,
1977, against Respondent, alleging that Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Sections 8(a)(5) and (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the
National 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. Respondent
filed an answer admitting in part, and denying in
part, the allegations of the complaint.
On January 16, 1978, counsel for the General
Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for
Summary Judgment. Subsequently on January 27,
1978, the Board issued an order transferring proceed-
ing to the Board and Notice To Show Cause why the
General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment
should not be granted. The Respondent filed a
document entitled "Affidavit in Opposition to the
Motion for Summary Judgment and Answer to
Notice To Show Cause."
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record 1 in this proceeding, the
Board make the following:
I Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding,
Case 2-RC-17619, as the term "record" is defined in Secs. 102.68 and
102.
6
9(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 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 (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, as amended.
2 The Board found the following unit of Respondent's employees to be
appropriate in the underlying representation proceeding, Meyer Label Co.,
Inc., 232 NLRB No. 142 (1977):
235 NLRB No. 28
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
The complaint and Motion for Summary Judgment
allege that the Union was duly certified as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of Re-
spondent's employees in a unit found appropriate,
that the Union requested that Respondent bargain
with it, and that Respondent refused to do so.
The Union filed a petition in Case 2-RC-17619 on
March 31, 1977, seeking to represent certain of
Respondent's employees. Although the Regional
Director dismissed the petition after a hearing, the
Board granted the Union's request for review and
directed an election in the unit requested by the
Union.2
After a secret-ballot election held on October 28,
1977, in which the Union received a majority of the
ballots cast, the Board certified the Union on
November 7, 1977.
According to the sworn allegations in the Motion
for Summary Judgment, on November 15, 1977, the
Union requested by telephone that Respondent
bargain with it and on November 17, 1977, Respon-
dent refused that request.
Respondent in its answer to the complaint and its
response to the Notice To Show Cause challenges the
appropriateness of the unit of employees whom the
Union represents, the majority status of the Union,
and the certification of the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative for the employ-
ees of Respondent in the unit. Thus, Respondent
contends that it did not refuse to bargain with a
properly certified representative in an appropriate
unit. In the same vein Respondent also denies
information sufficient to form an opinion as to
whether the Union requested Respondent to bargain
collectively with it as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative.
These contentions, however, are all based on
Respondent's objections to the Board's certification
of the Union as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive in an appropriate unit of Respondent's employ-
ees.3 Neither the fact of certification nor the aver-
ments that the Union made a request to bargain and
that Respondent refused to do so are specifically
denied.
All employees engaged in lithographic production work, including
pressmen, cameramen, strippers, and platemakers, excluding all other
employees, office clerical employees, guards, and all supervisors as
defined in the Act.
3 Attached to the Motion for Summary Judgment is Respondent's letter
dated December 6, 1977, stating that it is refusing to bargain with the Union
in order to seek review of the Board's unit decision in the underlying
representation proceeding.
157
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is well settled that in the absence of newly
discovered or previously unavailable evidence or
special circumstances a respondent in a proceeding
alleging an 8(a)(5) violation is not entitled to reliti-
gate issues which were or could have been litigated in
a prior representation proceeding.4
All issues raised by Respondent in this proceeding
were or could have been litigated in the prior
representation proceeding, and Respondent does not
offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discovered or
previously unavailable evidence, nor does it allege
that any special circumstances exist herein which
would require the Board to reexamine the decision
made in the representation proceeding. We therefore
find that Respondent has not raised any issue which
is properly litigable in this unfair labor practice
proceeding.
Accordingly, we shall grant the Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment.
On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is now, and has been at all times
material herein, a New York corporation, with its
principal office and place of business in New York,
New York, where it is engaged in the business of
specialty printing, primarily printing lable and
patches on fabrics. During the past year, Respondent
derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000, sold
and shipped to firms located outside the State of
New York goods valued in excess of $50,000, and
purchased goods from outside the State of New York
in excess of $50,000 which were shipped directly to
its New York facility.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that
Respondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, 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
jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local One, Amalgamated Lithographers of Ameri-
ca, a/w International Typographical Union, AFL-
CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
4 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).
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Representation Proceeding
1. The unit
The following employees of Respondent constitute
a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All employees engaged in lithographic production
work, including pressmen, cameramen, strippers,
and platemakers, excluding all other employees,
office clerical employees, guards, and all supervi-
sors as defined in the Act.
2. The certification
On October 28, 1977, a majority of the employees
of Respondent in said unit, in a secret-ballot election
conducted under the supervision of the Regional
Director for Region 2, designated the Union as their
representative for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing with Respondent. The Union was certified as the
collective-bargaining representative of the employees
in said unit on November 7, 1977, and the Union
continues to be such exclusive representative within
the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
B. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's
Refusal
Commencing on or about November 15, 1977, and
at all times thereafter, the Union has requested
Respondent to bargain collectively with it as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all
the employees in the above-described unit. Com-
mencing on or about November 17, 1977, and
continuing at all times thereafter to date, Respondent
has refused, and continues to refuse, to recognize and
bargain with the Union as the exclusive representa-
tive for collective bargaining of all employees in said
unit.
Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since
November 17, 1977, and at all times thereafter,
refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit, and that, by such refusal, Respon-
dent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act.
158
MEYER LABEL CO., INC.
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,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traff-
ic, 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
meaning 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
appropriate unit, and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
In order to insure that the employees in the
appropriate unit will be accorded the services of their
selected bargaining agent for the period provided by
law, we shall construe the initial period of certifica-
tion as beginning on the date Respondent com-
mences to bargain in good faith with the Union as
the recognized bargaining representative in the ap-
propriate 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); Burnett 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. Meyer Label Company, Inc., is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local One, Amalgamated Lithographers of
America, a/w International Typographical Union,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All employees engaged in lithographic produc-
tion work, including pressmen, cameramen, strippers,
and platemakers, excluding all other employees,
office clerical employees, guards, and all supervisors
as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. Since November 7, 1977, the above-named
labor organization has been and now is the certified
and exclusive representative of all employees in the
aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of
the Act.
5. By refusing on or about November 17, 1977,
and at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively
with the above-named labor organization as the
exclusive bargaining representative of all the employ-
ees of Respondent in the appropriate unit, Respon-
dent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act.
6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respon-
dent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and
is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, employ-
ees 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
meaning 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
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Meyer Label Company, Inc., New York, New York,
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
conditions of employment with Local One, Amalga-
mated Lithographers of America, a/w International
Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
bargaining representative of its employees in the
following appropriate unit:
All employees engaged in lithographic production
work, including pressmen, cameramen, strippers,
and platemakers, excluding all other employees,
office clerical employees, guards, and all supervi-
sors as defined in the Act.
(b) 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 an under-
standing is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement.
159
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Post at its facility at 5-7 East 16th Street, New
York, New York, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
2, after being duly signed by Respondent's represen-
tative, 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 2, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
5 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
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 Local
One, Amalgamated Lithographers of America,
a/w International Typographical Union, AFL-
CIO, as the exclusive representative of the em-
ployees in the bargaining unit described below.
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, upon request, bargain with the
above-named Union, as the exclusive representa-
tive of all employees in the bargaining unit
described below, with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment, and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agree-
ment. The bargaining unit is:
All employees engaged in lithographic pro-
duction work, including pressmen, camera-
men, strippers, and platemakers, excluding
all other employees, office clerical employ-
ees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in
the Act.
MEYER LABEL COMPANY,
INC.
160