Overnite Transportation Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 29, 1993

311 N.L.R.B. 1242 (N.L.R.B. 1993)

1242
311 NLRB No. 164
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 306 NLRB 237.
2 The Board also found that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(5)
and (1) by refusing to bargain with the Union concerning the effects
on unit employees of the opening of the Palatine terminal. The in-
stant motions do not involve this finding.
3 In denying the motion, we reject the Charging Party’s contention
that its majority status presumptively continued at Palatine because
the Respondent hid the fact that it was opening the Palatine terminal,
and limited the number of transferees from Bedford Park. Contrary
to the Charging Party’s contention, there were no findings in
Overnite that the Respondent unlawfully structured the employee
complement at Palatine.
4 We shall modify the amended conclusions of law, Order, and no-
tice set forth in the Board’s decision in Overnite, above, in accord
with our finding herein that the Respondent did not have a bar-
gaining obligation with respect to the drivers at Palatine.
Overnite Transportation Company and Local 705,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–
CIO. Case 13–CA–28668
July 29, 1993
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
RECONSIDER AND GRANTING MOTION TO
MODIFY NOTICE
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
DEVANEY AND RAUDABAUGH
On January 31, 1992, the National Labor Relations
Board issued a Decision and Order in this proceeding1
finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) by, inter alia, refusing to recognize and bargain
with the Union as the collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the unit employees at the Palatine terminal,
which constituted a ‘‘spinoff operation’’ from the main
terminal at Bedford Park.2
On December 28, 1992, the Respondent filed a mo-
tion to modify notice. The Respondent contends that
the Board in Gitano Distribution Center, 308 NLRB
1172 (1992), overruled its prior decision in Overnite to
the extent it had found Overnite had an obligation to
recognize and bargain with the Union at Palatine. The
Respondent therefore requests the Board to modify its
notice to delete the provisions regarding this violation.
On December 30, 1992, the Charging Party filed a
motion to reconsider, contending that the Palatine ter-
minal is not a separate appropriate unit, and that the
Respondent unlawfully ensured that a majority of local
drivers at the Palatine terminal were not transferees
from Bedford Park. For these reasons, the Charging
Party contends that the Board should reaffirm its find-
ing that the Respondent was obligated to bargain with
the Union as the representative of the employees at
Palatine. On February 22, 1993, the General Counsel
filed a brief in support of the Charging Party’s motion
to reconsider, contending that the Palatine operation is
part of the Bedford Park unit.
On February 2, 1993, the Respondent filed a brief
in opposition to the Charging Party’s motion to recon-
sider, and on April 22, 1993, the Respondent filed an
opposition to counsel for the General Counsel’s posi-
tion in support of Charging Party’s motion to recon-
sider. The Respondent contends that the General Coun-
sel and the Charging Party have presented no evidence
to rebut the presumptive appropriateness of the sepa-
rate Palatine unit, and that there were no findings or
allegations in Overnite that it unlawfully structured the
employee complement to limit the number of trans-
ferees from Bedford Park to Palatine. The Respondent
therefore maintains that the motion to reconsider
should be denied.
The Board having duly considered the matter,
IT IS ORDERED that the Charging Party’s motion to
reconsider is denied as lacking in merit.3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Respondent’s mo-
tion to modify notice is granted.4
SECOND AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Delete Amended Conclusion of Law 4 and substitute
the following for Conclusion of Law 5.
‘‘4. The unfair labor practice found affects com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.’’
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board affirms its pre-
vious Order as modified below and orders that the Re-
spondent, Overnite Transportation Company, Bedford
Park and Palatine, Illinois, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
Order as modified.
1. Delete paragraph 1(b) and reletter the subsequent
paragraph.
2. Delete paragraph 2(b) and reletter the subsequent
paragraphs.
3. Substitute the attached notice for that provided in
our previous decision.
MEMBER DEVANEY, dissenting.
Contrary to my colleagues, I would grant the Charg-
ing Party’s motion to reconsider.
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 Local 705,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO
1243OVERNITE TRANSPORTATION CO.
concerning the effects on unit employees of our open-
ing of the Palatine terminal.
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 about
the effects on unit employees of our opening of the
Palatine terminal.
OVERNITE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY