Producer's Dairy Foods, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 2, 2003

338 N.L.R.B. 131 (N.L.R.B. 2003)

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
Producer’s Dairy Foods, Inc. and Teamsters Local
853, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
AFI–CIO. Case 32–CA–20253–1
April 2, 2003
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS LIEBMAN, SCHAUMBER, AND WALSH
This is a refusal-to-bargain case in which the Respon-
dent is contesting the Union’s certification as bargaining
representative in the underlying representation proceed-
ing. Pursuant to a charge filed on December 26, 2002,
the General Counsel issued an amended complaint on
January 16, 2003, alleging that the Respondent has vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing the
Union’s request to bargain and to provide information
following the Union’s certification in Case 32–RC–5044.
(Official notice is taken of the “record” in the representa-
tion proceeding as defined in the Board’s Rules and
Regulations, Secs. 102.68 and 102.69(g); Frontier Hotel,
265 NLRB 343 (1982).) The Respondent filed an answer
admitting in part and denying in part the allegations in
the amended complaint, and asserting affirmative de-
fenses.
On February 5, 2003, the General Counsel filed a Mo-
tion for Summary Judgment. On February 11, 2003, the
Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the
Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion
should not be granted. 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
The Respondent admits its refusal to bargain and to
furnish information, but contests the validity of the certi-
fication based on its objections to the election in the rep-
resentation proceeding.
All representation issues raised by the Respondent
were or could have been litigated in the prior representa-
tion proceeding. The Respondent does not offer to ad-
duce at a hearing any newly discovered and previously
unavailable evidence, nor does it allege any special cir-
cumstances that would require the Board to reexamine
the decision made in the representation proceeding. We
therefore find that the Respondent has not raised any
representation issue that is properly litigable in this un-
fair labor practice proceeding. See Pittsburgh Plate
Glass Co. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941).
We also find that there are no factual issues warranting
a hearing with respect to the Union’s request for infor-
mation. The complaint alleges, and the Respondent’s
answer admits, that the Union requested the following
information from the Respondent by letters dated No-
vember 21 and December 9, 2002:

(1) Names and addresses of all Unit employees;
(2) Hourly wage rates for each Unit employee;
(3) Copy of the current health plan covering the Unit
employees, including costs paid by Respondent
and the employee for coverage;
(4) Copy of any pension plans, profit sharing plans,
401(k) plans covering Unit employees and the
amount paid into these plans by Respondent;
(5) All documents outlining vacations, holidays, and
any other terms and conditions of employment for
Unit employees.

Although the Respondent’s answer denies that the in-
formation requested is necessary and relevant to the Un-
ion’s duties as the exclusive bargaining representative of
the unit employees, it is well established that all of the
foregoing types of information are presumptively rele-
vant for purposes of collective bargaining and must be
furnished on request. See, e.g., Cheboygan Health Care
Center, 338 NLRB No. 115 (2003); Baker Concrete
Construction, Inc., 338 NLRB No. 48 (2002), and cases
cited therein. The Respondent has not asserted any basis
for rebutting the presumptive relevance of the informa-
tion, apart from its contention, rejected above, that the
Union’s certification is invalid.
Accordingly, we grant the Motion for Summary Judg-
ment and will order the Respondent to bargain and to
furnish the requested information.1
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times herein, the Respondent, a Cali-
fornia corporation with a facility and an office located in
San Leandro, California, has been engaged in the whole-
sale delivery and sale of milk products.
During the 12-month period preceding issuance of the
complaint, the Respondent, in the course and conduct of

1 Members Schaumber and Walsh did not participate in the underly-
ing representation proceeding. However, they agree that the Respon-
dent has not raised any new matters or special circumstances warrant-
ing a hearing in this proceeding or reconsideration of the decision made
in the representation proceeding, and that summary judgment is appro-
priate.
338 NLRB No. 131
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2
its business operations, purchased and received goods or
services valued in excess of $50,000 directly from sup-
pliers located outside the State of California. We find
that the Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(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 August 30, 2002, the Un-
ion was certified on November 15, 2002, as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the employees in
the following appropriate unit:

All full-time and regular part-time route salesmen,
drivers, relief drivers, and route sales supervisors, em-
ployed by Respondent at its San Leandro, California
facility; excluding all sales representatives, sales con-
sultants, branch manager(s), route manager(s), mer-
chandiser(s), employees performing work duties at Re-
spondent’s facility who are currently provided by tem-
porary placement or employment agencies, office cleri-
cal employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
The Union continues to be the exclusive representative un-
der Section 9(a) of the Act.
B. Refusal to Bargain
By letters dated November 21 and December 9, 2002,
the Union requested the Respondent to bargain and to
furnish information, and, since November 21, 2002, the
Respondent has failed and refused to do so. We find that
this failure and refusal constitutes an unlawful refusal to
bargain in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By failing and refusing on and after November 21,
2002, to bargain with the Union as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of employees in the ap-
propriate unit and to furnish the Union requested infor-
mation, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has violated Section
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 understanding
in a signed agreement. We also shall order the Respon-
dent to furnish the Union the information requested.
To ensure that the employees are accorded the services
of their selected bargaining agent for the period provided
by the law, we shall construe the initial period of the cer-
tification as beginning the date the Respondent 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, Producer’s Dairy Foods, Inc., San Leandro,
California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to bargain with Teamsters Lo-
cal 853, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–
CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of the
employees in the bargaining unit, and refusing to furnish
the Union information that is relevant and necessary to
its role as the exclusive bargaining representative of the
unit employees.
(b) 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 with the Union as the exclu-
sive representative of the employees in the following
appropriate unit on terms and conditions of employment
and if an understanding is reached, embody the under-
standing in a signed agreement:

All full-time and regular part-time route salesmen,
drivers, relief drivers, and route sales supervisors, em-
ployed by Respondent at its San Leandro, California
facility; excluding all sales representatives, sales con-
sultants, branch manager(s), route manager(s), mer-
chandiser(s), employees performing work duties at Re-
spondent’s facility who are currently provided by tem-
porary placement or employment agencies, office cleri-
cal employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.

(b) Furnish the Union the information it requested on
November 21 and December 9, 2002.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in San Leandro, California, copies of the at-
tached notice marked “Appendix.”2 Copies of the notice,

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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
PRODUCER’S DAIRY FOODS, INC. 3
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
32, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent 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 Respondent to ensure that the notices are not al-
tered, 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 facil-
ity involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall
duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the no-
tice to all current employees and former employees em-
ployed by the Respondent at any time since November
21, 2002.
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C., April 2, 2003

Wilma B. Liebman, Member

Peter C. Schaumber, Member

Dennis P. Walsh, 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

ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey
this notice.

FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO

Form, join, or assist any union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.

WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with Teamsters Local
853, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO,
as the exclusive representative of the employees in the
bargaining unit, and WE WILL NOT refuse to furnish the
Union information that is relevant and necessary to its
role as the 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 with the Union and put in
writing and sign any agreement reached on terms and
conditions of employment for our employees in the bar-
gaining unit:

All full-time and regular part-time route salesmen,
drivers, relief drivers, and route sales supervisors, em-
ployed by us at our San Leandro, California facility;
excluding all sales representatives, sales consultants,
branch manager(s), route manager(s), merchandiser(s),
employees performing work duties at our facility who
are currently provided by temporary placement or em-
ployment agencies, office clerical employees, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.

WE WILL furnish the Union the information it requested
on November 21 and December 9, 2002.

PRODUCER’S DAIRY FOODS, INC.