Michigan Sprinkler Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1992

308 N.L.R.B. 1329 (N.L.R.B. 1992)

1329
308 NLRB No. 191
MICHIGAN SPRINKLER CO.
Alan Zawilinski, a Sole Proprietor d/b/a Michigan
Sprinkler Company and Road Sprinkler Fitters
Local Union No. 69, U.A., AFL–CIO. Cases 7–
CA–33022, 7–CA–33057, and 7–CA–33296
September 30, 1992
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS DEVANEY, OVIATT, AND
RAUDABAUGH
Upon charges filed by the Union on March 10 and
19, 1992, in Cases 7–CA–33022 and 7–CA–33057, re-
spectively, and a charge filed by the Union on May 19,
1992, in Case 7–CA–33296, the General Counsel of
the National Labor Relations Board issued complaints,
which were consolidated for hearing by order dated
June 30, 1992, against Alan Zawilinksi, a sole propri-
etor d/b/a Michigan Sprinkler Company, the Respond-
ent, alleging that it has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the National Labor Relations Act. Although prop-
erly served with copies of the charges and complaints,
the Respondent has failed to file an answer.
On August 28, 1992, the General Counsel filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment. On September 1,
1992, 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 no response. The allegations in the motion are
therefore undisputed.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
Section 102.20 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations
provides that the allegations in the complaint shall be
deemed admitted if an answer is not filed within 14
days from service of the complaint, unless good cause
is shown. The complaints state that unless an answer
is filed within 14 days of service, ‘‘all the allegations
[in said complaints] shall be considered to be admitted
to be true and shall be so found by the Board.’’ Fur-
ther, the undisputed allegations in the Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment disclose that the Respondent was noti-
fied by letter dated June 17, 1992, that unless an an-
swer to the order consolidating cases, consolidated
complaint and notice of hearing issued in Cases 7–
CA–33022 and 7–CA–33057 was received by June 30,
1992, a Motion for Default Judgment would be filed.
In Case 7–CA–33296, a similar letter was sent advis-
ing the Respondent that unless an answer was received
by July 31, 1992, a Motion for Default Judgment
would be filed. To date, no answer has been filed by
the Respondent.
In the absence of good cause being shown for the
failure to file a timely answer, we grant the General
Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent is a sole proprietorship with an of-
fice and place of business in Bay City, Michigan,
where it has been engaged in the nonretail sale and in-
stallation of fire protection systems. During the year
ending December 31, 1991, a representative period, the
Respondent, in the conduct of its business operations,
provided services valued in excess of $50,000 to
Gerace Construction, an enterprise within the State of
Michigan that annually provides construction services
in excess of $100,000 for companies located in the
State of Indiana. During the same period, the Respond-
ent, in the course and conduct of its business oper-
ations, purchased and received at its Bay City, Michi-
gan facility goods valued in excess of $50,000 from
other enterprises, including Etna Supply Company of
Southeastern Michigan located within the State of
Michigan, which received these goods directly from
points outside the State of Michigan. 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
On February 20, 1990, the Union was certified as
the exclusive representative of the Respondent’s em-
ployees in an appropriate unit for purposes of collec-
tive bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other terms and conditions
of employment, pursuant to a Board-conducted election
held on February 9, 1990, in Case 7–RC–19158. By
virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act, the Union has been
and is the exclusive bargaining representative of all the
Respondent’s unit employees. The appropriate bargain-
ing unit consists of:
All full-time and regular part-time pipefitters,
sprinkler fitters, plumbers, apprentices, helpers
and laborers employed by Respondent at and out
of its Bay City, Michigan facility; but excluding
all office clerical employees, designers, janitorial
employees, estimators, professional employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the National
Labor Relations Act, and all other employees.
Since about October 21 and 24, November 6, and
December 4, 1991, the Union has requested, and since
about October 21, 1991, the Respondent has refused to
provide, certain information that is necessary for and
relevant to the Union’s performance of its duties as the
1330 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 In an October 21, 1991 letter, the Union requested the Respond-
ent provide it with the following information:
(1) Any and all documents demonstrating that your organiza-
tion is now out of business or is winding down its affairs, in-
cluding, but not limited to, any documents such as corporate
dissolution papers and/or cancellation of licenses. A detailed
explanation why the company is no longer, or will no longer
be, in the sprinkler business; (2) Any and all documents re-
flecting any relationships or arrangements your organization
has made with other entities for the continuation of, or per-
formance of, jobs originally contracted by your company. This
information includes but is not limited to subcontracting
agreements (within the past twelve months) and/or asset sales
or leases; (3) Any and all documents reflecting any relation-
ship your organization has with any other entity engaged in
business in the sprinkler industry. This information includes
but is not limited to documents reflecting common ownership,
common employees, common assets, common management,
and/or common jobs; (4) A complete listing of all jobs your
organization is currently performing or is scheduled to per-
form in the future; (5) A listing of any sprinkler work your
organization has performed in the past six months, and for
each such job, state its location, its duration, and the names,
addresses, and social security numbers of any persons who
performed sprinkler work on the job.
In an October 24, 1991 letter, and reiterated in letters dated No-
vember 6 and December 4, 1991, the Union requested the Respond-
ent provide it with an explanation about ‘‘some type of bankruptcy
meeting’’ the Respondent was to have on December 5, or why it is
being held; the name, address, and telephone number of the bank-
ruptcy trustee that Respondent claimed had put restraints on it re-
garding negotiations, and a written statement from the trustee as to
what the Respondent ‘‘can and cannot negotiate at this time.’’
2 Member Oviatt would not require the Respondent to provide so-
cial security numbers to the Union without some specified reason
that they are relevant as alleged in the complaint. Under current law
an employer is not obliged to submit social security numbers of em-
ployees to a union without actual proof of their relevance. Sea-Jet
Trucking Corp., 304 NLRB 67 (1991).
There is no explanation in the complaint of the relevance of social
security numbers here. The complaint merely incorporates by ref-
erence the union information requests in this respect. That is not a
proper basis, in his judgment, for requiring the revelation of this sen-
sitive information which is not presumptively relevant. To the extent
the rationale of Fire Sprinkler Installers, 306 NLRB No. 103 (Feb.
28, 1992) (not reported in Board volumes), may be to the contrary,
he would, on reflection, overrule it.
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the
Respondent’s unit employees.1 Further, since on or
about May 14, 1992, the Respondent has refused the
Union’s requests, made about March 1991 and on or
about May 14, 1992, and again by letter dated May 18,
1992, for information regarding the number of jobs the
Respondent currently had under contract, and a list of
current unit employees, including their wage rates, hire
dates, and addresses, which information was also nec-
essary for and relevant to the Union’s performance of
its collective-bargaining obligations.
Since on or about May 14, 1992, the Respondent
has also engaged in bad-faith bargaining by approach-
ing negotiations without any intent to engage in mean-
ingful bargaining, by insisting on a contract clause that
would make any agreement nonbinding on the parties,
and by failing and refusing to proffer any contract pro-
posals to the Union. Finally, on or about March 2,
1992, the Respondent, without first notifying or bar-
gaining with the Union, announced the institution of a
mandatory overtime policy for March 1992, a manda-
tory bargaining subject. By engaging in all the above-
described conduct, we find that the Respondent has
failed and refused and is failing and refusing to bar-
gain collectively and in good faith with the Union as
the exclusive bargaining representative of its unit em-
ployees, and has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act, as alleged.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By refusing to provide the Union with necessary and
relevant information, approaching negotiations without
any intent to engage in meaningful bargaining, insist-
ing on a contract clause that would make any agree-
ment nonbinding on the parties, failing and refusing to
proffer any contract proposals to the Union, and an-
nouncing the institution of a mandatory overtime pol-
icy without first notifying or bargaining with the
Union, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.2
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease
and desist and to take certain affirmative action de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The Respondent shall be ordered to bargain in good
faith with the Union with respect to the unit employ-
ees’ wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment. We shall further order the Respondent to
provide the Union with requested information, and to
rescind the mandatory overtime policy it implemented
in March 1992.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Alan Zawilinski, a sole proprietor d/b/a
Michigan Sprinkler Company, Bay City, Michigan, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to bargain in good faith with
Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669, U.A.,
AFL–CIO, which is the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the Respondent’s employees in an ap-
propriate unit, by approaching negotiations without any
intent of engaging in meaningful bargaining, insisting
on a contract clause that would make any agreement
nonbinding on the parties, and failing and refusing to
proffer any contract proposals to the Union. The ap-
propriate bargaining unit consists of:
1331MICHIGAN SPRINKLER CO.
3 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.’’
All full-time and regular part-time pipefitters,
sprinkler fitters, plumbers, apprentices, helpers
and laborers employed by Respondent at and out
of its Bay City, Michigan facility; but excluding
all office clerical employees, designers, janitorial
employees, estimators, professional employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the National
Labor Relations Act, and all other employees.
(b) Instituting a mandatory overtime policy without
first notifying or affording the Union an opportunity to
bargain over such policy, and failing and refusing to
provide the Union with information that is necessary
and relevant to the Union’s performance of its duties
as exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the
unit employees.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, 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 in good faith with the Union
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
the unit employees with respect to their wages, hours,
and other terms and conditions of employment.
(b) Provide the Union with the requested informa-
tion that is necessary for and relevant to the Union’s
performance of its role as the exclusive bargaining rep-
resentative of the unit employees, and rescind the man-
datory overtime policy implemented in March 1992.
(c) Post at its facility in Bay City, Michigan, copies
of the attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’3 Copies of
the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 7, after being signed by the Respondent’s
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt 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 Re-
spondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
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
ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to bargain in good
faith with Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669,
U.A., AFL–CIO, which is the exclusive bargaining
representative of our employees in an appropriate unit,
by approaching negotiations without any intent of en-
gaging in meaningful bargaining, insisting on a con-
tract clause that would make any agreement non-
binding on the parties, and by failing and refusing to
proffer any contract proposals to the Union. The ap-
propriate bargaining unit consists of:
All full-time and regular part-time pipefitters,
sprinkler fitters, plumbers, apprentices, helpers
and laborers employed by Alan Zawilinski, a Sole
Proprietor d/b/a Michigan Sprinkler Company at
and out of its Bay City, Michigan facility; but ex-
cluding all office clerical employees, designers,
janitorial employees, estimators, professional em-
ployees, guards and supervisors as defined in the
National Labor Relations Act, and all other em-
ployees.
WE WILL NOT implement a mandatory overtime pol-
icy without first notifying the Union or providing it an
opportunity to bargain over such policy, and WE WILL
NOT fail and refuse to provide the Union with informa-
tion that is necessary for and relevant to the perform-
ance of its role as exclusive bargaining representative
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 in good faith with the
Union with respect to the unit employees’ wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.
WE WILL rescind the mandatory overtime policy im-
plemented in March 1992, and WE WILL provide the
Union with the requested information.
ALAN ZAWILINSKI, A SOLE PROPRIETOR
D/B/A MICHIGAN SPRINKLER COMPANY