Rutters Linen Service

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 10, 1981

256 N.L.R.B. 1171 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

RUTTERS LINEN SERVICE 1171
Stoneham Laundry, Inc., Brooks, Inc. d/b/a Rutters
Linen Service and New England Regional Joint
Board, Amalgamated Clothing & Textile Work-
ers Union, AFL-CIO, CLC. Case -CA-18276
July 10, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a charge filed on January 30, 1981, by
New England Regional Joint Board, Amalgamated
Clothing & Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO,
CLC, herein called the Union, and duly served on
Stoneham Laundry, Inc., Brooks, Inc. d/b/a Rut-
ters Linen Service, herein called Respondent, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board, by the Acting Regional Director for Region
1, issued a complaint and notice of hearing on Feb-
ruary 26, 1981, 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 and complaint
and notice of hearing before an administrative law
judge were duly served on the parties to this pro-
ceeding.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the
complaint alleges in substance that on December 1,
1980, following a Board election in Case -RC-
16898, the Union was duly certified as the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of Re-
spondent's employees in the unit found appropri-
ate;' and that, commencing on or about January
20, 1981,2 and at all times thereafter, Respondent
has refused, and continues to date to refuse, to bar-
gain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
bargaining representative, although the Union has
requested and is requesting it to do so, and com-
mencing on or about January 20, 1981, Respondent
has refused, and continues to date to refuse, to bar-
gain collectively with the Union by refusing to
provide information requested by the Union.
Thereafter, Respondent filed its answer to the com-
plaint admitting in part, and denying in part, the al-
legations in the complaint.
' Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceed-
ing, Case I RC-16898, as the term "record" is defined in Se. 10268
and 102 69 (g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8. as amenldtd
See LTV Elecrosystems, Inc., 166 NLRB 938 (1967), enfd 388 F2d h83
(4th Cir. 1968); Golden Age Beverage Co. 167 NLRB 151 (1967). enfd 415
F.2d 26 (5th Cir 1969); Intertype Co. v Peneil,. 269 F Supp 573
(D.C.Va. 1967); Follet, Corp., 164 NLRB 378 (1967). enfd 397 2d 91
(7th Cir. 198); Sec 9(d) of the NLRA, as amended
2 The complaint alleges, and Respondent admits, that Respondent's re-
fusal to bargain occurred on I)ecembcr 2(0, 198(0 lloC, erer, in his lMoion
for Summary Judgment the General Counlsel points out that the correct
date of the refusal to bargain was Januar, 2(). 1981 We note that Re-
spondent, in its response to the Notice To Shoss Cause. does not dispute
the correctness of the Januar 2. 1981. dalte
256 NLRB No. 176
On March 30, 1981, counsel for the General
Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for
Summary Judgment, with exhibits attached. Subse-
quently, on April 13, 1981, the Board issued an
order transferring the proceeding to the Board and
a Notice To Show Cause why the General Coun-
sel's Motion for Summary Judgment should not be
granted. Respondent thereafter filed a response to
the Notice To Show Cause.
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, Respondent
admits its refusal to recognize and bargain with the
Union. However, it challenges the Union's certifi-
cation based on its objections to the election in the
underlying representation proceeding.
Review of the record herein, including the
record in Case 1-RC-16898, reveals that an elec-
tion conducted pursuant to a Stipulation for Certifi-
cation Upon Consent Election on July 11, 1980, re-
sulted in a vote of 51 for, and 41 against, the
Union, with 6 challenged ballots and 2 void ballots.
Thereafter, Respondent filed timely objections to
the election alleging, in substance, that the Union
made substantial and material misrepresentations
concerning the vacation benefits which employees
receive under union contracts and the size of a
wage increase negotiated by the Union for certain
employees at the facility of another employer.
After investigation, the Regional Director issued
his Report on Objections in which he recommend-
ed that Respondent's objections be overruled in
their entirety and that a Certification of Repre-
sentative be issued. Thereafter, Respondent filed
exceptions to the Regional Director's report. On
December 1, 1980, the Board, having considered
the Regional Director's report, the Employer's ex-
ceptions thereto, and the entire record, adopted the
findings and recommendations of the Regional Di-
rector and certified the Union as the exclusive bar-
gaining agent of the employees in the unit stipulat-
ed to be appropriate. It thus appears that Respond-
ent is attempting in this proceeding to relitigate
issues fully litigated and finally determined in the
representation proceeding.
It is well settled that in the absence of newly dis-
covered or previously unavailable evidence or spe-
cial circumstances a respondent in a proceeding al-
leging 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.'
' See litrhbure,,h PhIo (ia (o . L R B. 3 I3 l S 146, I2 1941):
Rule ild Rc tldalns oft tihe Botard S's 11)2 7'(f) .'ln, 102 6h9 It)
RIJTTERS LINEN SERVICE I
1172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All issues raised by Respondent in this proceed-
ing were or could have been litigated in the prior
representation proceeding, and 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 made in the representation proceeding. We
therefore find that Respondent has not raised any
issue which is properly litigable in this unfair labor
practice proceeding.
In this proceeding Respondent contends, in
effect, that it is entitled to a hearing on its objec-
tions to the election. Prior to adopting the findings
and recommendations of the Regional Director's
Report on Objections, the Board considered the
report, Respondent's exceptions thereto, and the
entire record in this case. In adopting the report
recommending that Respondent's objections be
overruled, the Board expressly found that Re-
spondent's request for a hearing was without merit.
It is well established that the parties do not have an
absolute right to a hearing on objections to an elec-
tion. It is only when the moving party presents a
prima facie showing of "substantial and material
issues" which would warrant setting aside the elec-
tion that it is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. It
is clear that, absent arbitrary action, this qualified
right to a hearing satisfies the constitutional re-
quirements of due process.4 Accordingly, we find
that Respondent at all material times herein has re-
fused to recognize and bargain with the Union, and
that it thereby has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the Act.
In its answer to the complaint, Respondent
admits that it has refused to furnish the Union with
the requested information, but defends its refusal to
furnish such information on the grounds that the
Union's certification is improper. For the above-
stated reasons, we find such a defense without
merit. By letter dated December 19, 1980, the
Union requested that Respondent furnish it with in-
formation concerning the employees' rates of pay,
benefits, seniority dates, work rules, and related in-
formation. 5
4 GI'E Lenkurt, Incorporated, 218 NLRII 929 (1975); Hueavenly ll,/
Ski Area, a California Corporation, and Ihavenly Valley. a Partnership, 215
NLRB 734 (1974); Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America [infield
Manufacturing Company, Inc.] v. N.L.RB.. 424 F2d 818 (D.C. Cir
1970).
s More specifically, the Union requested the name, date of birth, classi-
fication, and wage rate of each unit employee; each unit employee's date
of hire, last increase, and any transfer a 4eekly list of new hires and
copies of all employee benefit programs job evaluation systens, produc-
tion standard systems. and employee plant rules; the yearly earnings.
overtime paly, vacation pay, and holiday pitay for each emploce; and the
cost of each fringe benefit and whether the employee or the Employer or
both pay the cost.
It is well established that such information is pre-
sumptively relevant for purposes of collective bar-
gaining and must be furnished upon request.6 Fur-
thermore, Respondent has not attempted to rebut
the relevance of the information requested by the
Union. Accordingly, we find that no material issues
of fact exist with regard to Respondent's refusal to
furnish the information sought by the Union in its
letter of December 19, 1980, and that its refusal to
do so violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
Therefore, we 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 RESPONDENT
Stoneham Laundry, Inc., a Massachusetts corpo-
ration, maintains its principal office and place of
business at 45 Brook Street Rear, Lawrence, Mas-
sachusetts, where it is engaged in the business of
providing commercial (nonretail) laundering serv-
ices. Brooks, Inc. d/b/a Rutters Linen Service, a
Massachusetts corporation, maintains its principal
office and place of business at 45 Brook Street
Rear, Lawrence, Massachusetts, where it is en-
gaged in the business of providing commercial
(nonretail) laundering services. At all times materi-
al herein, Stoneham Laundry, Inc., and Brooks,
Inc. d/b/a Rutters Linen Service, have been affili-
ated business enterprises and have constituted a
single integrated business enterprise and a single
employer.
Respondent, in the course and conduct of its
business, causes and continuously has caused at all
material times herein, large quantities of goods and
materials used by it in the providing of laundering
services to be purchased and transported in inter-
state commerce from and through various States of
the United States other than the Commonwealth of
Massachusettes. Respondent annually receives at its
45 Brook Street Rear, Lawrence, Massachusetts,
location goods and materials valued in excess of
$50,000 directly from sources located outside the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
We find, based on the foregoing, that Stoneham
Laundry, Inc., and Brooks, Inc. d/b/a Rutters
Linen Service, are, and have been at all material
times herein, a single integrated business enterprise
and single 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 jurisdiction herein.
; l'rlna I)VYIevU I)tvion l,[obay Chemical orp ( oration. 233 NLRB
1, 110 (1 77)
RUTTERS LINEN SERVICE I 1173
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOI.VED
New England Regional Joint Board, Amalgamat-
ed Clothing & Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO,
CLC, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. ITHE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Representation Proceeding
1. The unit
The following employees of Respondent consti-
tute a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining
purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
All regular full-time and regular part-time pro-
duction and maintenance employees including
plant clerical employees employed by the Em-
ployer at its Lawrence, Massachusetts, facility,
but excluding all office clerical employees,
truck drivers, guards and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
2. The certification
On July 11, 1980, a majority of the employees of
Respondent in said unit, in a secret-ballot election
conducted under the supervision of the Regional
Director for Region 1, designated the Union as
their representative for the purpose of collective
bargaining with Respondent.
The Union was certified as the collective-bar-
gaining representative of the employees in said unit
on December 1, 1980, and the Union continues to
be such exclusive representative within the mean-
ing of Section 9(a) of the Act.
B. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's
Refusal
Commencing on or about December 19, 1980,
and at all times thereafter, the Union has requested
Respondent to bargain collectively with it as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all
the employees in the above-described unit. Com-
mencing on or about January 20, 1981, and con-
tinuing at all times thereafter to date, Respondent
has refused, and continues to refuse, to recognize
and bargain with the Union as the exclusive repre-
sentative for collective bargaining of all employees
in said unit.
Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since
January 20, 1981, and at all times thereafter, re-
fused to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the ap-
propriate unit, and that, by such refusal, Respond-
ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act.
C. The Request for Information and
Respondent's Refusal To Furnish It
Commencing on or about December 19. 1980,
and at all times thereafter, the Union has requested
Respondent to provide it with information con-
cerning the unit employees' rates of pay, benefits,
seniority dates, work rules, and related information.
Commencing on or about January 20, 1981, Re-
spondent has refused, and continues to refuse, to
provide the Union with the requested information.
Accordingly, we find that Respondent has re-
fused to furnish the Union with information relat-
ing to employment conditions and wages of the
employees in the appropriate unit, and that, by
such refusal, Respondent has engaged in and is en-
gaging 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 oper-
ations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf-
fic, and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of com-
merce.
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, bargain collectively with the Union
as the exclusive representative of all employees in
the appropriate unit, and, if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement. We shall also order that Respondent,
upon request, furnish the Union with the informa-
tion it requested by letter dated December 19,
1980.
In order to insure that the employees in the ap-
propriate unit will be accorded the services of their
selected bargaining agent for the period provided
by law, we shall construe the initial period of certi-
fication as beginning on the date Respondent com-
mences to bargain in good faith with the Union as
the recognized bargaining representative in the ap-
propriate 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 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817;
RUTTERS LINEN SERVICE 1 73
1174 I)ECISIONS OF NATIONAL. I.ABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Burnett Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419,
1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th Cir. 1965).
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record, makes the following:
CONCL.USIONS 01 LAW
1. Stoneham Laundry, Inc., Brooks, Inc. d/b/a
Rutters Linen Service, is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. New England Regional Joint Board, Amalga-
mated Clothing & Textile Workers Union, AFL-
CIO, CLC, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All regular full-time and regular part-time pro-
duction and maintenance employees, including
plant clerical employees, employed by Respondent
at its Lawrence, Massachusetts, facility, but exclud-
ing all office clerical employees, truckdrivers,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act.
4. Since December 1, 1980, the above-named
labor organization has been and now is the certified
and exclusive representative of all employees in the
aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a)
of the Act.
5. By refusing on or about January 20, 1981, and
at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with
the above-named labor organization as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of all the employees
of Respondent in the appropriate unit, Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act.
6. By refusing on or about January 20, 1981, and
at all times thereafter, to furnish the Union with in-
formation concerning the unit employees' rates of
pay, benefits, seniority dates, work rules, and relat-
ed information as requested by the Union in its
letter of December 19, 1980, Respondent has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
7. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respond-
ent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced,
and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing,
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
8. 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
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Stoneham Laundry, Inc., Brooks, Inc. d/b/a Rut-
ters Linen Service, Lawrence, Massachusetts, 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 New England Re-
gional Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing & Tex-
tile Workers Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of its employees in
the following appropriate unit:
All regular full-time and regular part-time pro-
duction and maintenace employees including
plant clerical employees employed by the Em-
ployer at its Lawrence, Massachusetts, facility,
but excluding all office clerical employees,
truck drivers, guards and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with the
above-named labor organization by refusing to fur-
nish said labor organization with the information
requested in its letter of December 19, 1980, con-
cerning the unit employees' rates of pay, benefits,
seniority dates, work rules, and related information.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise 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
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 understanding is reached, embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement.
(b) Upon request, furnish the above-named labor
organization with the information requested in its
letter of December 19, 1980, concerning the unit
employees' rates of pay, benefits, seniority dates,
work rules, and related information.
(c) Post at its Lawrence, Massachusetts, facility
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 7
7 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 Lahor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
alt to .a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
RUTTFRS LINEN SERVICE 1175
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region , after being duly
signed by Respondent's representative, shall be
posted 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 Re-
spondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
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 New England Regional Joint Board,
Amalgamated Clothing & Textile Workers
Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, as the exclusive rep-
resentative of the employees in the bargaining
unit described below.
WE WILl. NOT refuse to bargain collectively
with the above-named Union by refusing to
furnish said Union the information requested in
its letter of December 19, 1980, concerning
theunit employees' rates of pay, benefits, se-
niority dates, work rules, and related informa-
tion.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ-
ees 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 repre-
sentative of all employees in the bargaining
unit described below, with respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours, and other terms and condi-
tions of employment, and, if an understanding
is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement. The bargaining unit is:
All regular full-time and regular part-time
production and maintenance employees in-
cluding plant clerical employees employed
by the Employer at its Lawrence, Massa-
chusetts, facility, but excluding all office
clerical employees, truck drivers, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively
with the above-named Union by furnishing it
the information it requested concerning the
unit employees' rates of pay, benefits, seniority
dates, work rules, and related information.
STONEHAM LAUNDRY, INC., BROOKS,
INC. D/B/A RUTTERS LINEN SERVICE
RUTTERS LINEN SERVIC
_ . . .