Rocket Industries

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 20, 1991

304 N.L.R.B. 1017 (N.L.R.B. 1991)

1017
304 NLRB No. 131
ROCKET INDUSTRIES
1 The name of the Charging Party has been changed to reflect the new offi-
cial name of the International Union.
2 The judge misspelled the name of the Respondent’s president, Raymond
L. Bleiweis.
3 The judge inadvertently omitted from his recommended Order a provision
requiring the Respondent to cease and desist from violating the Act ‘‘in any
like or related manner.’’ We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order and
notice accordingly.
4 In its exceptions, the Respondent contends solely that considering the Re-
spondent’s economic circumstances ‘‘there is a ‘moral abuse issue’ of allow-
ing a second union to take up the bargaining after the first one virtually aban-
doned the process.’’ (Emphasis in original.) In this regard, the Respondent
notes that United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America, Dis-
trict 3, AFL–CIO–CLC won an election held November 5, 1987, and asserts
that when negotiations reached an impasse, it ‘‘passed the baton’’ to the Union
here for a ‘‘second bite of the apple.’’
5 Even if we were to consider the Respondent’s exceptions sufficient under
Sec. 102.46, we nevertheless would adopt the judge’s decision on the merits.
In granting the General Counsel’s motion to strike the Respondent’s excep-
tions, Member Devaney emphasizes that in its exceptions the Respondent does
not specify or indicate how the judge erred in finding the violations alleged
and does not identify or place in issue any matter pertinent to the judge’s deci-
sion. Member Devaney therefore finds the present case distinguishable from
Worldwide Detective Bureau, 296 NLRB 148 (1989), where he would have
denied the General Counsel’s motion to strike the respondent’s exceptions be-
cause there, unlike here, the respondent’s exceptions sufficiently identified the
portions or aspects of the judge’s decision that the respondent claimed were
erroneous.
Rocket Industries, Inc. and Teamsters Automotive,
Industrial & Allied Workers, Local 495, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–
CIO.1 Case 21–CA–27760
September 20, 1991
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
DEVANEY AND OVIATT
On May 22, 1991, Administrative Law Judge
George Christensen issued the attached decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions, and the General Counsel
filed a motion to strike the Respondent’s exceptions.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and has decided to af-
firm the judge’s rulings, findings,2 and conclusions as
modified3 for the reasons set forth below, and to adopt
the recommended Order as modified.
Section 102.46(b) of the Board’s Rules and Regula-
tions sets forth the minimum requirements with which
exceptions to an administrative law judge’s decision
must comply in order to merit consideration by the
Board. A party excepting to the findings of an admin-
istrative law judge must set forth with specificity those
portions of the judge’s decision to which it excepts,
and support the contentions with legal or record cita-
tions or appropriate argument. Bonanza Sirloin Pit,
275 NLRB 310 (1985).
In its exceptions the Respondent has listed no rul-
ings or findings of the judge that it contends are in
error.4 Consequently, we find that the Respondent’s
exceptions do not conform to the minimum require-
ments of Section 102.46(b) of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations in that they fail to put in issue any of the
findings of the judge. We therefore grant the General
Counsel’s motion to strike the Respondent’s excep-
tions, and we adopt the judge’s decision. See Section
102.48(a) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations.5
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent, Rock-
et Industries, Inc., Los Angeles, California, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Order as modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1.
‘‘1. Cease and desist from
‘‘(a) Failing and refusing to furnish Teamsters Auto-
motive, Industrial & Allied Workers, Local 495, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO with the
information contained in Local 495’s July 10 and Au-
gust 22, 1990 written requests addressed to and re-
ceived by Rocket Industries, Inc. and failing and refus-
ing to meet and bargain in good faith with Teamsters
Local 495 at its request concerning the rates of pay,
wages, hours, and working conditions of the employ-
ees within the unit of Rocket Industries, Inc.’s employ-
ees Teamsters Local 495 was certified to represent for
collective-bargaining purposes on March 15, 1990.
‘‘(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.’’
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the ad-
ministrative law judge.
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 fail and refuse to furnish to Teamsters
Automotive, Industrial & Allied Workers, Local 495,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO at
its request information necessary and relevant to its
execution of its function and duty to represent and bar-
gain with us on behalf of our employees within the
following unit:
All production and maintenance employees, ship-
ping employees, welding employees, painting em-
ployees, Excel employees, bicycle assembly em-
1018 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 While counsel for the General Counsel did not request the opportunity to
file a brief prior to the close of the hearing, he filed a timely posthearing mo-
tion for leave to file a brief. That motion is granted and the brief has been
fully considered.
2 These findings are based on the undisputed testimony of Robert M. Len-
nox (Lennox), the president of the Union, which I credit, and documents con-
tained in the official files of the Union and whose authenticity was established
by Lennox.
ployees, packing employees, mechanics, machine
shop employees, quality control employees, driv-
ers, powder coating employees, Excel metal fab-
rication employees, polishing employees, plating
employees, foundry employees, wheel machining
employees, Excel packaging employees, auto
products packaging employees, shipping and
wheel packaging employees, Excel products order
pullers and auto products pullers employed by us
at our facilities located at 9935 Beverly Boule-
vard, Pico Rivera, California, and 3501 Union Pa-
cific Avenue, Los Angeles, California; excluding
all office clerical employees, professional employ-
ees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to bargain in good
faith with Teamsters Local 495 at its request concern-
ing the rates of pay, wages, hours, and working condi-
tions of our employees within the above-described
unit.
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 furnish forthwith to Teamsters Local 495
the information it requested from us on July 10 and
August 22, 1990.
WE WILL bargain with Teamsters Local 495 at its
request concerning the rates of pay, wages, hours, and
working conditions of our employees within the above-
described unit and, if an agreement is reached, embody
that agreement in a signed contract and comply with
its terms.
WE WILL recognize and bargain with Teamsters
Local 495 as the duly designated collective-bargaining
representative of our employees within the above-de-
scribed unit for at least 1 year from the date we com-
mence good-faith bargaining with Teamsters Local 495
over the rates of pay, wages, hours, and working con-
ditions of our employees within the above-described
unit.
ROCKET INDUSTRIES, INC.
Robert DeBonis, for the General Counsel.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE CHRISTENSEN, Administrative Law Judge. On
April 2, 1991, I conducted a hearing at Los Angeles, Califor-
nia, to try issues raised by a complaint issued on February
7, 1991, based on a charge filed by Teamsters Automotive,
Industrial & Allied Workers, Local 495, International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America, AFL–CIO (Union) on October 22, 1990, and
amended on November 28, 1990.
The complaint alleged and Rocket Industries, Inc. (Re-
spondent) in its answer thereto admitted at all material times
the Union was the duly designated exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of an appropriate unit of the Respond-
ent’s employees, the Union asked the Respondent to furnish
information necessary and relevant to the Union’s perform-
ance of its function as the representative of the employees,
and the Union asked the Respondent to bargain with it con-
cerning the wages, hours, and working conditions of the unit
employees. The complaint further alleged and the answer de-
nied, however, the Respondent failed and refused to supply
the requested information, that the Respondent refused to
bargain with the Union, and the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act (Act).
The issues created by the foregoing are whether:
1. The Respondent failed and refused to supply the Union
with the requested information;
2. The Respondent refused to bargain with the Union con-
cerning the wages, hours, and working conditions of the unit
employees; and
3. If so, whether the Respondent thereby violated the Act.
The General Counsel appeared by counsel and was af-
forded full opportunity to adduce evidence, examine wit-
nesses, argue, and to file a brief.1
The initial and amended charges were filed by counsel for
the Union and he was apprised of the time, date, and place
of hearing. However, he did not appear and participate in the
hearing. The Respondent’s answer to the complaint was filed
by counsel and he represented the Respondent in exchanges
with the Union concerning the Union’s information request
and request for bargaining. However, in a prehearing con-
ference, the Respondent’s owner, Raymond Bleiwiss, advised
me that counsel no longer represented the Respondent.
Bleiwiss was apprised of the time, date, and place of the
hearing but did not appear and participate therein either per-
sonally or by a representative.
Based on my review of the entire record, observation of
the witness, perusal of the brief and research, I enter the fol-
lowing
FINDINGS OF FACT2
I. JURISDICTION
The complaint alleged, the answer admitted, and I find at
all material times the Respondent, a California corporation,
was engaged in the manufacture of automobile wheels and
exercise equipment at facilities located at Pico Rivera and
Los Angeles, California, annually sold and shipped goods
and products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to cus-
tomers located outside the State of California, and was an
employer engaged in commerce in a business affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 of the Act.
1019ROCKET INDUSTRIES
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION
The complaint alleged, the answer admitted, and I find at
all material times the Union was a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
On November 17, 1989, Region 21 conducted an election
among the following unit of the Respondent’s employees
deemed appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes within
the meaning of Section 9 of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees, shipping
employees, welding employees, painting employees,
Excel employees, bicycle assembly employees, packing
employees, mechanics, machine shop employees, qual-
ity control employees, drivers, powder coating employ-
ees, Excel metal fabrication employees, polishing em-
ployees, plating employees, foundry employees, wheel
machining employees, Excel packaging employees, auto
products packaging employees, shipping and wheel
packaging employees, Excel products order pullers and
auto products pullers employed by Respondent at its fa-
cilities located at 9935 Beverly Boulevard, Pico Rivera,
California and 3501 Union Pacific Avenue, Los Ange-
les, California; excluding all office clerical employees,
professional employees, guards and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
A majority of the employees within the unit voted for rep-
resentation by the Union for the purpose of bargaining col-
lectively with the Respondent concerning their wages, hours,
and working conditions.
On November 22, 1989, the Respondent filed objections to
the election.
On December 28, 1989, Regional Director for Region 21
issued a report recommending the Respondent’s objections
be overruled.
On January 11, 1990, Charles H. Goldstein, as counsel for
the Respondent, filed exceptions to the Regional Director’s
report and recommendations with the National Labor Rela-
tions Board (Board) and on January 12, advised the Union
he was authorized to represent the Respondent in future deal-
ings with the Union.
On March 15, 1990, the Board sustained the Regional Di-
rector, overruling the Respondent’s objections to the election,
and certified the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the Respondent’s employees within the unit.
On July 10, 1990, the Union sent a letter to Goldstein re-
questing the Respondent furnish the Union the following in-
formation to assist the Union in drafting a proposal for a col-
lective-bargaining agreement covering the wages, hours, and
working conditions of the unit employees:
1. The name and current address of each employee
in the bargaining unit; their present classification of
work, present shift assignment and starting time.
2. The original date of hire and age of each em-
ployee.
3. The present hourly rate of pay of each employee.
4. The Company’s present vacation policy.
5. The Company’s present sick leave policy.
6. A copy of your present health, medical, and hos-
pital program; the total cost of same; the amounts paid
by the Company and by the individual employee and
the total number of employees in the bargaining unit
who are covered by the program.
7. The number of paid holidays.
8. Your funeral leave policy.
9. The normal work week and the number of hours
per day each employee is required to work.
10. The number of hours each shift is required to
work.
11. The Company’s lunch policy.
12. A copy of the present Company rules.
13. A list of each job in the bargaining unit.
14. Any hours, profit sharing or retirement program;
the cost of the program; a copy of same and how many
employees covered.
15. Any other terms and conditions of employment
and/or the benefits which apply to employees in the
bargaining unit.
On August 2, 1990, Goldstein responded with a letter stat-
ing the Respondent was understaffed, it was going to take
some time to prepare the requested information and the
Union would be contacted to schedule negotiations at a mu-
tually agreeable time and place when the requested informa-
tion had been prepared.
On August 22, 1990, the Union sent another letter to
Goldstein in which it renewed its information request by let-
ter, advised Goldstein the Union contacted Commissioner
Buffington of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Serv-
ice, wished to proceed under his auspices in contract negotia-
tions; and asked when the Union could expect to receive the
requested information and commence negotiations.
In early September 1990, Buffington telephoned Lennox to
see when and if bargaining could commence. Lennox told
Buffington about the Union’s repeated information request
and the lack of a response. Buffington stated he would tele-
phone Goldstein to ascertain what the holdup was.
Buffington subsequently telephoned Lennox, told Lennox he
contacted Goldstein, Goldstein stated his client was out of
the country, and stated he was unable to produce the re-
quested information. Lennox responded the Union needed the
requested information and was anxious to begin negotiations.
Buffington suggested the Union wait awhile and see if the
information would be supplied.
Still hearing nothing from the Respondent, on October 16,
1990, the Union caused its attorney to file the initial charge
in this case.
Neither the Respondent directly nor through its counsel
thereafter contacted the Union, though following the filing of
the charge (in November 1990) Buffington telephoned Len-
nox to state Goldstein contacted him and offered to meet and
negotiate with the Union, to which Lennox responded with-
out the requested information the Union was unable to for-
mulate an intelligent proposal concerning the wages, hours,
and working conditions of the unit employees.
Since that time the Union has had no further contact with
Buffington, with Goldstein, or with any representative of the
Respondent, nor has the Union received the requested infor-
mation.
1020 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3 NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149 (1956); NLRB v. Acme Industrial
Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967); and cases subsequent.
4 NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736 (1962); and cases subsequent.
5 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules
and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as
provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objec-
tions to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
B. Analysis and Conclusions
1. The information request
The information sought by the Union clearly seeks to as-
certain the existing rates of pay, wages, hours, and working
conditions of the unit employees and clearly is necessary for
and relevant to the Union’s execution of its duty to formulate
and seek from the Respondent adjustments thereto it believes
are in the unit employees’ best interests. In fact, the Re-
spondent so conceded in admitting the correctness of para-
graph 8(b) of the complaint.
Just as clearly, the failure and refusal of the Respondent
to furnish the Union with that information is an unfair labor
practice in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.3
I therefore find, and conclude, the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by failing and refusing
since July 1990 to furnish the Union with the information it
requested by letters dated July 10 and August 22, 1990.
2. The refusal to bargain
On August 22, 1990, the Union coupled its renewed infor-
mation request with a request to commence bargaining as
soon as the Union was supplied with the requested informa-
tion and enabled to prepare intelligent proposals for inclusion
in a collective-bargaining agreement concerning the rates of
pay, wages, hours, and working conditions of the unit em-
ployees.
It is clear the Respondent stalled the commencement of
such negotiations by failing and refusing to supply the re-
quested information, never supplied the requested informa-
tion, never contacted the Union with a response on its re-
quest for negotiations, and there is only hearsay evidence
Goldstein, after receipt of the Union’s unfair labor practice
charge, told a mediator the Respondent was prepared to meet
with the Union—without any mention of the Union’s pend-
ing information request.
In view of the Respondent’s earlier stalling tactics, its fail-
ure to accompany its offer to meet with submission of the
requested information, and the fact the Goldstein offer was
only made after the initial charge was filed, I find the alleged
Goldstein offer to meet and bargain with the Union was not
a good-faith offer.
I therefore find, and conclude, the Respondent failed and
refused to engage in good-faith collective bargaining with a
view towards negotiating a contract with the Union covering
the unit employees’ wages, hours, and working conditions.
I therefore further find, and conclude, since the March 15,
1990 certification of the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the unit employees, the Re-
spondent has failed and refused to bargain in good faith with
the Union concerning the rates of pay, wages, hours, and
working conditions of the unit employees, thereby violating
Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.4
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. At all pertinent times the Respondent was an employer
engaged in commerce in a business affecting commerce and
the Union was a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2 of the Act.
2. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the
Act by failing and refusing to furnish to the Union informa-
tion requested by the Union necessary and relevant to its
execution of its duty to bargain intelligently on behalf of the
unit employees and by its failure and refusal to bargain in
good faith at the Union’s request concerning the rates of pay,
wages, hours, and working conditions of the unit employees.
3. The unfair labor practices just enumerated affected and
affect interstate commerce as defined in Section 2 of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found the Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices, I recommend the Respondent be directed to cease
and desist therefrom and to take affirmative action designed
to effectuate the purposes of the Act.
Having found the Respondent failed and refused to furnish
information requested by the Union to enable the Union to
intelligently bargain with the Respondent on behalf of the
unit employees and to bargain in good faith with the Union
concerning those employees’ rates of pay, wages, hours, and
working conditions, I recommend the Respondent be directed
to furnish the Union forthwith with the requested information
and, following the submission of that information to the
Union, meet and bargain with the Union at its request con-
cerning the rates of pay, wages, hours, and working condi-
tions of the unit employees.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended5
ORDER
The Respondent, Rocket Industries, Inc., Los Angeles,
California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to furnish Teamsters Automotive,
Industrial & Allied Workers, Local 495, International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO with the information con-
tained in Local 495’s July 10 and August 22, 1990 written
requests addressed to and received by Rocket Industries, Inc.
(b) Failing and refusing to meet and bargain in good faith
with Teamsters Local 495 at its request concerning the rates
of pay, wages, hours, and working conditions of the employ-
ees within the unit of Rocket Industries, Inc.’s employees
Teamsters Local 495 was certified to represent for collective
bargaining purposes on March 15, 1990.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Furnish forthwith to Teamsters Local 495 the informa-
tion Local 495 requested in writing of Rocket Industries, Inc.
on July 10 and August 22, 1990.
(b) Following the furnishing of that information, meet and
bargain with Local 495 at its request concerning the rates of
pay, wages, hours, and working conditions of the employees
of Rocket Industries, Inc. within the certified unit and, if un-
derstanding is reached, embody such understanding in a writ-
ten and signed agreement and implement the terms thereof.
1021ROCKET INDUSTRIES
6 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 Rela-
tions Board’’ shall read ‘‘Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.’’
(c) Recognize and bargain with Local 495 as the duly des-
ignated exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
Rocket Industries, Inc.’s employees within the certified unit
for the year commencing with the initial date of bargaining
pursuant to this Order.
(d) Post at its facilities in Pico Rivera and Los Angeles,
California, and any other locations where notices are cus-
tomarily posted copies of the attached notice marked ‘‘Ap-
pendix.’’6 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 21 shall be immediately signed
and posted by a duly authorized representative, and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees cus-
tomarily are posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to en-
sure the notices are not altered, defaced, 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 Respondent has
taken to comply.