Sandvik Rock Tools, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1998

326 N.L.R.B. 133 (N.L.R.B. 1998)

1
326 NLRB No 133
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
Board 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.
Sandvik Rock Tools, Inc. and Shopmen’s Local Union
No. 753 of the International Association of
Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing
Iron Workers, AFL–CIO. Case 11–CA–17991
September 30, 1998
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FOX, LIEBMAN, AND BRAME
Pursuant to a charge and amended charge filed on June
26, 1998, and July 22, 1998, respectively, the Acting
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board
issued a complaint and notice of hearing and amended
complaint and notice of hearing on July 16, 1998, and
July 30, 1998, respectively, alleging that the Respondent
has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National La-
bor Relations Act by refusing the Union’s request to bar-
gain and to provide information following the Union’s
certification in Case 11–RC–6254. (Official notice is
taken of the “record” in the representation 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 and amended
answer admitting in part and denying in part the allega-
tions in the amended complaint.
On September 4, 1998, the Acting General Counsel
filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum
in Support. On September 9, 1998, the Board issued an
order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a No-
tice 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
In its amended answer the Respondent admits its re-
fusal to bargain and to furnish information that is rele-
vant and necessary to the Union’s role as bargaining rep-
resentative, but attacks the validity of the certification on
the basis of the Board’s unit determination in the repre-
sentation 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 issues warranting a
hearing with respect to the Union’s request for informa-
tion. The amended complaint alleges, and the Respon-
dent’s amended answer admits, that the Union requested
the following information on May 7, 1998:
(1) Names of all bargaining unit employees.
(2) Dates of hire and wage rates of all bargaining unit
employees.
(3) Job classifications or description of work per-
formed by all bargaining unit employees.
(4) Descriptions and explanations of bonus or incen-
tive plans, vacation benefits, group insurance, welfare
benefits, or pension plans, including costs thereof, and
any other fringe benefits for all bargaining unit employ-
ees.
The Respondent’s amended answer states that based
on the fact that it denies that the collective-bargaining
unit certified by the Regional Director was appropriate
for collective bargaining, it denies that the information is
relevant and necessary to the Union’s duties as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative. It is well established,
however, that such information is presumptively relevant
for purposes of collective bargaining and must be fur-
nished on request unless its relevance is rebutted, which
the Respondent has not done. See, e.g., Maple View
Manor, Inc., 320 NLRB 1149 (1996); Trustees of the
Masonic Hall, 261 NLRB 436 (1982); and Verona Dye-
stuff Division, 233 NLRB 109, 110 (1977).
Accordingly, we grant the Motion for Summary Judg-
ment and shall order the Respondent to recognize and
bargain with the Union and to furnish the Union the in-
formation requested.1
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent is now, and has been at all times ma-
terial, a Delaware corporation, with facilities in Bristol,
Virginia, where it is engaged in the manufacture and
nonretail sale of chemical products and machine tool
products.
During the 12-month period preceding issuance of the
complaint, which period is representative of all times
material herein, the Respondent sold and shipped from
its Bristol, Virginia facilities, goods valued in excess of
$50,000 directly to points outside the Commonwealth of
Virginia.
We find that the Respondent is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 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.

1 Member Brame did not participate in the underlying representation
proceeding. He agrees, however, that the Respondent has not raised
any new matters that would require the Board to reexamine the decision
in the representation proceeding. Accordingly, he joins his colleagues
in granting the Motion for Summary Judgment.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Certification
Following the election held April 24, 1998, the Union
was certified on May 4, 1998, as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the fol-
lowing appropriate unit:
All full time production and maintenance employees
employed by the Respondent at its Chemical Produc-
tion Division in Bristol, Virginia; but excluding all
clerical employees, watchmen and or guards as defined
in the Act.
The Union continues to be the exclusive representative
under Section 9(a) of the Act.
B. Refusal to Bargain
Commencing on or about May 7, 1998, and continuing
to date, the Union has requested, and is requesting, the
Respondent to bargain collectively, and to provide in-
formation which is relevant and necessary to the Union’s
performance of its function as the employees’ exclusive
collective-bargaining representative, and, commencing
on or about May 7, 1998, and at all times thereafter, the
Respondent has failed and refused, and continues to fail
and refuse. We find that this failure and refusal consti-
tutes an unlawful refusal to bargain in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By refusing on and after May 7, 1998, to recognize
and bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of employees in the appropriate
unit and to furnish the Union the requested necessary and
relevant information, the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices 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 recognize and bargain on request with the Un-
ion, and, if an understanding is reached, to embody the
understanding in a signed agreement. We also shall or-
der the Respondent 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
recognize and 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); Bur-
nett 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, Sandvik Rock Tools, Inc., Bristol, Virginia,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain with Shopmen’s Local Union
No. 753 of the International Association of Bridge,
Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers,
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 neces-
sary 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 production and maintenance employees
employed by the Respondent at its Chemical Produc-
tion Division in Bristol, Virginia; but excluding all
clerical employees, watchmen and or guards as defined
in the Act.
(b) Furnish the Union the information that it requested
on May 7, 1998.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Bristol, Virginia, copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”2 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 11
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event
that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Re-
spondent has gone out of business or closed the facility
involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall du-
plicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice
to all current employees and former employees employed
by the Respondent at any time since May 7, 1998.

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-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
SANDVIK ROCK TOOLS, INC. 3
(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. September 30, 1998
Sarah M. Fox, Member
Wilma B. Liebman, Member
J. Robert Brame III, 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
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to
post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with Shopmen’s Local
Union No. 753 of the International Association of
Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron
Workers, 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 nec-
essary to its role as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive 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 production and maintenance employees
employed by us at our Chemical Production Division in
Bristol, Virginia; but excluding all clerical employees,
watchmen and or guards as defined in the Act.
WE WILL furnish the Union the information that it re-
quested on May 7, 1998.
SANDVIK ROCK TOOLS, INC.