Rockland-Bamberg Print Works, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 19, 1976

226 N.L.R.B. 1040 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

1040 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Rockland-Bamberg Print Works, Incorporated and
Machine Printers and Engravers Association of the
United States. Case 11-CA-6634
November 19, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND WALTHER
Upon a charge filed on June 28, 1976, by Machine
Printers and Engravers Association of the United
States, herein called the Union, and duly served on
Rockland-Bamberg Print Works, Incorporated,
herein called the Respondent, the General Counsel
of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Re-
gional Director for Region 11, issued a complaint on
July 28, 1976, against Respondent, alleging that Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing 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 hear-
ing before an Administrative Law Judge were duly
served on the parties to this proceeding.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the com-
plaint alleges in substance that on June 7, 1976, fol-
lowing a Board election in Case 11-RC-4101 the
Union was duly certified as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of Respondent's employees
in the unit found appropriate;' and that, commenc-
ing on or about June 18, 1976, and at all times there-
after, Respondent has refused, and continues to date
to refuse, to bargain collectively with the Union as
the exclusive bargaining representative, although the
Union has requested and is requesting it to do so. On
August 6, 1976, Respondent filed its answer to the
complaint admitting in part, and denying in part, the
allegations in the complaint.
On August 13, 1976, counsel for the General
Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for
Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on August 24,
1976, 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 there-
after filed a response to Notice To Show Cause, enti-
i Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding,
Case 11-RC-4101, as the term "record" is defined in Secs 102 68 and
102.69(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations , Series 8, as amended. See
LTV Electrosystems, Inc, 166 NLRB 938 (1967), enfd. 388 F 2d 683 (C.A 4,
1968), Golden Age Beverage Co, 167 NLRB 151 (1967), enfd 415 F 2d 26
(C A 5, 1969), Intertype Co v Penello, 269 F Supp 573 (D C Va, 1967),
Follett Corp, 164 NLRB 378 (1967), enfd 397 F 2d 91 (C A 7, 1968), Sec
9(d) of the NLRA , as amended
tied "Employer's Statement in Opposition to General
Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment."
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 attacks the
certified Union's majority representative status con-
tending that: (1) its objections warranted setting
aside the election and, alternatively, (2) the denial of
a full hearing on its objections deprived it of proce-
dural due process. On the other hand, counsel for the
General Counsel argues that all material issues have
been previously decided in the underlying represen-
tation case and may not be relitigated and that there
are no litigable issues of fact requiring a hearing. We
agree with counsel for the General Counsel.
Review of the record herein, including that in the
representation proceeding, Case 11-RC-4101, estab-
lishes that, pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification
Upon Consent Election, an election was conducted
on December 18, 1975, among the employees in the
stipulated unit. The tally of ballots revealed that of
the five eligible voters four voted for, and one
against, the Union; there were no challenged ballots.
The Respondent filed timely objections alleging, in
substance, that the Union and/or its agents (1)
threatened employees with reprisals; (2) deliberately
misrepresented certain material facts to employees
during the election campaign when the Respondent
had no adequate time to reply; (3) promised employ-
ees during the campaign that it would waive initia-
tion fees and dues; and (4) totally destroyed the labo-
ratory conditions for a free and fair election. After
investigation, the Acting Regional Director on
March 24, 1976, issued his Report on Objections in
which he found that the objections were without
merit 2 and recommended that they be overruled and
2 Considering the objections in the light of the evidence proffered by the
Respondent, the Acting Regional Director found that , as to Objection 1, the
statement of a union official that an employee should sign a union card so
that the official could protect him, if anything happened , was not a threat of
reprisal , as to Objection 2, the statement of the same union official to an
employee that this Union never had any strikes, even if a misrepresentation,
was not sufficient to warrant setting aside the election since the Respondent
had earlier raised the matter of possible strikes and the employees had
sufficient opportunity to make an independent evaluation, as to Objection
3, the waiver of initiation fees did not fall within the proscription of the
Supreme Court' s decision in N L R B v. Savair Manufacturing Co, 414 U.S.
270 (1973), as it was not conditioned on the employees ' vote nor limited to
employees who joined the Union prior to the election ; and as to Objection
4, the Respondent failed to present any evidence
226 NLRB No. 153
ROCKLAND-BAMBERG PRINT WORKS 1041
the Union certified. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
timely exceptions to the report on objections, with a
supporting brief, reiterating its objections and re-
questing the Board to set aside the election or, alter-
natively, to conduct a full adversary hearing to re-
solve the substantial and material issues raised by its
objections. On June 7, 1976, the Board issued its De-
cision and Certification of Representative in which,
after considering the record in the light of the Re-
spondent's exceptions and brief, it adopted the Act-
ing Regional Director's findings and recommenda-
tions and certified the Union. The Board thereby
found, in effect, not only that the Respondent's ob-
jections did not warrant setting aside the election but
also that the Respondent was not denied procedural
due process because the objections raised no sub-
stantial and material issues warranting a hearing.'
It is well settled that in the absence of newly dis-
covered or previously unavailable evidence or special
circumstances a respondent in a proceeding alleging
a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled to reliti-
gate issues which were or could have been litigated in
a prior representation proceeding.4
All issues raised by the Respondent in this pro-
ceeding 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 de-
cision made in the representation proceeding. We
therefore find that the Respondent has not raised
any issue which is properly litigable in this unfair
labor practice proceeding. We shall, accordingly,
grant the Motion for Summary Judgment.
On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Re-
spondent 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 effectuate the policies of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Machine Printers and Engravers Association of
the United States is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Representation Proceeding
1. The unit
The following employees of the Respondent con-
stitute a unit appropriate for collective -bargaining
purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
All journeymen and apprentice machine printers
employed at the Employer's Bamberg, South
Carolina, finishing plant, but excluding all other
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
2. The certification
On December 18, 1975, a majority of the employ-
ees of Respondent in said unit, in a secret ballot elec-
tion conducted under the supervision of the Regional
Director for Region 11, designated the Union as their
representative for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing with the Respondent. The Union was certified as
the collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in said unit on June 7, 1976, and the Union
continues to be such exclusive representative within
the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
Respondent is a South Carolina corporation with a
plant located in Bamberg, South Carolina, where it is
engaged in the finishing of textile products. During
the past 12 months, Respondent has received mate-
rials from points directly outside the State of South
Carolina, whose value exceeded $50,000, and during
said period it has shipped products to points directly
outside the State of South Carolina whose value ex-
ceeded $50,000.
3 See Drew University, 226 NLRB 218 (1976), and cases cited in fn 2
therein
4 See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co v N L.R B, 313 US. 146, 162 (1941),
Rules and Regulations of the Board , Secs 102 67(f) and 102 69(c)
B. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's Refusal
Commencing on or about June 10, 1976, and at all
times thereafter, the Union has requested the Re-
spondent to bargain collectively with it as the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of all the
employees in the above-described unit. Commencing
on or about June 18, 1976, and continuing at all
times thereafter to date, the Respondent has refused,
and continues to refuse, to recognize and bargain
with the Union as the exclusive representative for
collective bargaining of all employees in said unit.
Accordingly, we find that the Respondent has,
since June 18, 1976, and at all times thereafter, re-
1042 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fused to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the ap-
propriate unit, and that, by such refusal, Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices 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 opera-
tions described in section I, above, have a close, inti-
mate, 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 mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall
order that it cease and desist therefrom, and, upon
request, bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of all employees in the ap-
propriate unit, and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
In order to insure that the employees in the appro-
priate unit will be accorded the services of their se-
lected bargaining agent for the period provided by
law, we shall construe the initial period of certifica-
tion as beginning on the date Respondent commenc-
es to bargain in good faith with the Union as the
recognized bargaining representative in the appropri-
ate unit. See Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., 136
NLRB 785 (1962); Commerce Company d/b/a Lamar
Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328 F.2d 600
(C.A. 5, 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817 (1964); Bur-
nett Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419, 1421
(1964), enfd. 350 F.2d (C.A. 10, 1965).
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record, makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Rockland-Bamberg Print Works, Incorporated,
is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Machine Printers and Engravers Association of
the United States is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All journeymen and apprentice machine
printers employed at the Employer's Bamberg, South
Carolina, finishing plant, but excluding all other em-
ployees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act.
4. Since June 7, 1976, the above-named labor or-
ganization has been and now is the certified and ex-
clusive representative of all employees in the afore-
said appropriate unit for the purpose of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the
Act.
5. By refusing on or about June 18, 1976, and at
all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the
above-named labor organization as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of all the employees of Re-
spondent in the appropriate unit, Respondent has en-
gaged 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, Respondent
has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, 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 mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that Respondent, Rock-
land-Bamberg Print Works , Incorporated , its offi-
cers , 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 con-
ditions of employment with Machine Printers and
Engravers Association of the United States as the
exclusive bargaining representative of its employees
in the following appropriate unit:
All journeymen and apprentice machine printers
employed at the Employer 's Bamberg, South
Carolina , finishing plant, but excluding all other
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.
ROCKLAND-BAMBERG PRINT WORKS
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
labor organization as the exclusive representative of
all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms
and conditions of employment, and, if an under-
standing is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement.
(b) Post at its Bamberg, South Carolina, plant,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 5
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 11, after being duly
signed by Respondent's representative, shall be post-
ed by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily 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 11, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
5In 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 read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board "
APPENDIX
1043
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively
concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment with Ma-
chine Printers and Engravers Association of the
United States as the exclusive representative of
the employees in the bargaining unit described
below.
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
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the
above-named Union, as the exclusive represen-
tative of all employees in the bargaining unit de-
scribed below, with respect to rates of pay, wag-
es, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment, and, if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement. The bargaining unit is:
All journeymen and apprentice machine
printers employed at the Employer's Bam-
berg, South Carolina, finishing plant, but ex-
cluding all other employees, guards and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act.
ROCKLAND-BAMBERG PRINT WORKS, INCOR-
PORATED