Renmuth, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 4, 1972

195 N.L.R.B. 325 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

RENMUTH, INC. 325
Renmuth , Inc. and International Union , United Au-
tomobile , Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW). Case 7-CA-8971
February 4, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY
Upon a charge filed on September 20, 1971, by Inter-
national Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW),
herein called the Union, and duly served on Renmuth,
Inc.,' herein called the Respondent, the General Coun-
sel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Re-
gional Director for Region 7, issued a complaint on
October 14, 1971, against Respondent, alleging that
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies
of the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing before
a Trial Examiner were duly served on the parties to this
proceeding.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the com-
plaint alleges in substance that on April 8, 1971, follow-
ing a Board election in Case 7-RC-10332 the Union
was duly certified as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of Respondent's employees in the unit
found appropriate;' that, commencing on or about
April 8, 1971, and at all times thereafter, and more
particularly on April 28 and August 13, 1971, the Un-
ion has requested the Respondent to bargain collec-
tively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative; that since April 28, 1971, the Union has
requested and the Respondent has refused to furnish
the Union with data and information relating to rates
of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions
of employment of bargaining unit employees; and that
since April 8, 1971, and more particularly on or about
August 13, 1971, Respondent has refused, and contin-
ues to refuse, to bargain collectively with the Union. On
October 26, 1971, Respondent filed its answer to the
complaint admitting in part, and denying in part, the
allegations in the complaint.
On November 3, 1971, counsel for the General
Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for
Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on November 5,
' Official notice is taken of Board files in this proceeding which show
service under Sec 102 14 of the Board's Rules and Regulations
' Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding,
Case 7-RC-10332, as the term "record" is defined in Secs 102 68 and
102 69(f) of the Board's Rules and Regulations , Series 8, as amended See
LTV Electrosystems, Inc., 166 NLRB 938, enfd. 388 F 2d 683 (C A 4,
1968), Golden Age Beverage Co., 167 NLRB 151, Intertype Co. v Penello,
269 F Supp 573 (D C Va, 1967), Follett Corp., 164 NLRB 378, enfd 397
F 2d 91 (C A 7, 1968), Sec 9 (d) of the NLRA
1971, the Board issued an order transferring the pro-
ceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show Cause why
the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment
should not be granted. Respondent thereafter filed a
response to Notice To Show Cause.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board
makes the following:
RULING ON THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
In its answer to the complaint and response to the
Notice To Show Cause, the Respondent contests the
Union's majority status and the validity of its certifica-
tion. The record in Case 7-RC-10332 shows that, pur-
suant to the Regional Director's Decision and Direc-
tion of Election, an election was conducted on March
11, 1971, in the stipulated unit of production and
maintenance employees, a majority of whom voted for
the Union. The Respondent thereafter filed timely ob-
jections alleging in substance that the election should
not have been conducted during the pendency of the
unfair labor practice proceedings (Cases 7-CA-8548
and 7-CA-8734) against the Respondent; the Union
misrepresented to employees that the father of a super-
visor was a "powerful organizer" who wanted to union-
ize the Respondent's employees; and that a majority of
the employees revoked their designation of the Union.
After investigation, the Regional Director issued his
Supplemental Decision, Report on Objections and Cer-
tification of Representative on April 8, 1971, in which
he overruled the Respondent's objections and certified
the Union. The Respondent filed no request for review,
although it had allegedly discussed its objections with
a Board agent after April 8, 1971.'
It is well settled that in the absence of newly discov-
ered or previously unavailable evidence or special cir-
cumstances, and in the absence of exhaustion of ad-
ministrative appeals, a respondent in a proceeding
alleging a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled to
relitigate issues which were or could have been litigated
in a prior representation proceeding.'
All of the above issues raised by the Respondent in
this proceeding were or could have been litigated in the
prior representation proceeding, and the Respondent
does not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discov-
ered or previously unavailable evidence, nor does it
allege that any special circumstances exist herein which
would require the Board to reexamine the decision
Lowell Corrugated Container Corp., 177 NLRB 169
° See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co v NL.R.B, 313 U S 146, 162 (1941),
Rules and Regulations of the Board, Secs 102 67(1) and 102 69(c)
195 NLRB No. 59
326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
made in the representation proceeding. We therefore
find that the above issues are not properly litigable in
this unfair labor practice proceeding.
In its answer and response, the Respondent also
argues in defense to the 8(aX5) allegations that (1) two
Union negotiators are discharged employees, hostile to
management; (2) there has been substantial expansion
of the unit since the election, in that the employee
complement has increased from 50 to 100; and (3) there
were no requests by the Union for bargaining on April
8 and August 13, 1971, although Respondent admits
that it received the Union's April 28 letter requesting
immediate negotiations and collective-bargaining data
and that it refused to furnish the data.'
With respect to the Respondent's objection to the
composition of the Union's negotiating committee, Re-
spondent admits that the two discharged employees are
alleged discriminatees in Cases 7-CA-8548 and 7-CA-
8734.6 Since the Act specifically guarantees the right of
employees to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, in the absence of special
circumstances which do not appear here, we find no
merit in the Respondent's refusal to bargain on this
ground.'
We find no merit in the Respondent's contention as
to the purported expansion of the bargaining unit, be-
cause, standing alone, and in the absence of any conten-
tion or evidence that the employee complement in the
appropriate unit was not "representative and substan-
tial" at the time of the election, such expansion does not
affect the bargaining status of the Union.'
Finally, with respect to the Union's letter of April 28,
1971, which it admittedly received, the Respondent
failed to respond to the Union's request for immediate
negotiations and specifically refused to supply the re-
quested data. Respondent thereby refused to bargain
with the Union.' We shall, accordingly, grant the Mo-
tion for Summary Judgment. On the basis of the entire
record, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Michigan corporation with its only
office and place of business located at 9111 Schaefer in
the city of Detroit, has at all times material herein been
engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of
6 The supervisory status of Plant Superintendent Ken Brown is irrelevant
.to our determination herein
6 A Trial Examiner issued his Decision on December 8, 1971, finding that
the Respondent discriminatorily discharged these two employees (TXD-
689-71)
North Bros Ford, Inc., 187 NLRB No 106
Lakeshore Electric Mfg. Corp., 67 NLRB 804 ; Clement-Blythe Compa-
nies, 182 NLRB 502.
1 Rod-Ric Corporation, 171 NLRB No 134.
metal stampings and related products. During the year
ending December 31, 1970, a representative period,
Respondent sold products valued in excess of $50,000,
to Chrysler Corporation which annually sells and ships
in excess of $50,000 worth of products from its Michi-
gan plants directly outside the State of Michigan.1°
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Respond-
ent 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 effectu-
ate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW), is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Representation Proceeding
1. The unit
The following employees of the Respondent consti-
tute a unit appropriate for collective -bargaining pur-
poses within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and regular part -time production
and maintenance employees including shipping
and receiving employees and truckdrivers at the
Respondent 's Detroit , Michigan , plant, and ex-
cluding office clerical employees , professional em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
2. The certification
On March 11, 1971, a majority of the employees of
Respondent in said unit, in a secret ballot election con-
ducted under the supervision of the Regional Director
for Region 7 designated the Union as their representa-
tive for the purpose of collective bargaining with the
Respondent. The Union was certified as the collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in said unit
on April 8, 1971, 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 April 28, 1971, and at all
times thereafter, the Union has requested the Respond-
ent to bargain collectively with it as the exclusive col-
10 We take official notice of our exercise of jurisdiction over Chrysler
Corporation in Chrysler Corporation, 148 NLRB 1124
RENMUTH, INC.
lective-bargaining representative of all the employees in
the above-described unit, and to furnish the Union with
certain collective-bargaining data. Commencing on or
about April 28, 1971, and continuing at all times there-
after to date, the Respondent has refused, and contin-
ues to refuse, to recognize and bargain with the Union
as the exclusive representative for collective bargaining
of all employees in said unit, and to furnish the Union
with the requested data.
Accordingly, we find that the Respondent has, since
April 28, 1971, and at all times thereafter, refused to
bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the appropriate unit
and has refused to furnish the Union with requested
collective-bargaining data, and that, by such refusals,
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act.
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 operations de-
scribed in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relationship to trade, traffic, 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, bar-
gain collectively with the Union as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all employees in the appropriate unit, fur-
nish the Union with relevant collective-bargaining
data, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement.
In order to insure that the employees in the appropri-
ate unit will be accorded the services of their selected
bargaining agent for the period provided by law, we
shall construe the initial period of certification as begin-
ning on the date Respondent commences to bargain in
good faith with the Union as the recognized bargaining
representative in the appropriate unit. See Mar-Jac
Poultry Company, Inc., 136 NLRB 785; Commerce
Company d/b/a Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229,
enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (C.A. 5), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817;
Burnett Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419,
1421, enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (C.A. 10).
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts and
the entire record, makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
327
1. Renmuth, Inc., is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. International Union, United Automobile, Aero-
space and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW), is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All full-time and regular part-time production and
maintenance employees including shipping and receiv-
ing employees and truckdrivers at the Respondent's
Detroit, Michigan, plant, and excluding office clerical
employees, professional employees, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act constitute a unit appropri-
ate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. Since April 8, 1971, the above-named labor organ-
ization has been and now is the certified and exclusive
representative of all employees in the aforesaid appro-
priate unit for the purpose of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By refusing on or about April 28, 1971, and at all
times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the above-
named labor organization as the exclusive bargaining
representative of all the employees of Respondent in
the appropriate unit and to furnish the Union with
requested collective-bargaining data, Respondent 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 and to furnish
the Union with requested collective-bargaining data,
Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and co-
erced, and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing,
employees 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 meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that Respondent, Renmuth, Inc.,
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 International Union, United Au-
tomobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW), and to furnish the Union
with relevant collective-bargaining data as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of its employees in the
following appropriate unit:
328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All full-time and regular part-time production and
maintenance employees including shipping and re-
ceiving employees and truckdrivers at the Re-
spondent's Detroit, Michigan , plant, and exclud-
ing office clerical employees, professional
employees, guards, and supervisors 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 la-
bor organization as the exclusive representative of all
employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with re-
spect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment, and furnish relevant collec-
tive-bargaining data, and, if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed agree-
ment.
(b) Post at its Detroit, Michigan, plant copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 7, after being duly signed by Respondent's rep-
resentative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily 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 7, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
" 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 be changed to 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
terms and conditions of employment with Interna-
tional Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW) as the exclusive representative of the em-
ployees in the bargaining unit described below, or
refuse to furnish the Union with relevant collec-
tive-bargaining data.
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 Sec-
tion 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 de-
scribed below, with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment, furnish it with relevant collective-bargain-
ing data, and, if an understanding is reached, em-
body such understanding in a signed agreement.
The bargaining unit is:
All full-time and regular part-time
production and maintenance employees in-
cluding shipping and receiving employees
and truckdrivers at the Respondent's Detroit,
Michigan, plant, and excluding office clerical
employees, professional employees, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
RENMUTH, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions may be directed to the Board's
Office, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washington Boule-
vard, Detroit, Michigan 48226, Telephone 313-226-
3200.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively
concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and other