St. Clair Die Casting, LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 28, 2004

341 N.L.R.B. 144 (N.L.R.B. 2004)

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound 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.
St. Clair Die Casting, L.L.C. and International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural
Implement Workers of America-UAW. Cases
14–CA–27716 and 14–CA–27786
May 28, 2004
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS SCHAUMBER
AND WALSH
This is a refusal-to-bargain case in which the Respon-
dent is contesting the Union’s certification as bargaining
representative in the underlying representation proceed-
ing. Pursuant to a charge filed on January 12, 2004 in
Case 14–CA–27716 and on March 1, 2004 in Case 14–
CA–27786, the General Counsel issued the complaint on
March 24, 2004, alleging that the Respondent has vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing the
Union’s request to bargain and to provide information
following the Union’s certification in Case 14–RC–
12456. (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 admitting in part and denying in part the
allegations in the complaint.
On April 20, 2004, the General Counsel filed a Motion
for Summary Judgment and brief in support of Motion.
On April 23, 2004, the Board issued an order transferring
the proceeding to the Board and a Notice 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
The Respondent admits its refusal to bargain and to
furnish information, but contests the validity of the certi-
fication based on its disagreement with the Board’s unit
determination in the representation proceeding. The Re-
spondent asserts that the bargaining unit, which includes
setup specialists, is inappropriate for purposes of collec-
tive bargaining inasmuch as the setup specialists are su-
pervisors under the Act.
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 factual issues warranting
a hearing with respect to the Union’s request for
information. The complaint alleges, and the
Respondent’s answer admits, that the Union requested
the following information from the Respondent by letters
dated October 31 and December 18, 2003, and January
12, 2004 and further admits that it has refused to provide
the requested information:

1. A list of all hourly employees setting forth
their date of hire, sex, age, and marital status;
2. Classifications and wage rates of all hourly
employees;
3. Any bonus and/or merit increase(s) and infor-
mation used to grant same;
4. A copy of any insurance benefits, such as life,
accidental death, dismemberment, medical, surgical,
dental, disability benefit for sickness and injury,
along with the cost of each benefit per employee, per
month, to the company and to the individual em-
ployee;
5. A list of all fringe benefits that employees
have at the present time, such as holidays, vacations,
educational allowance, jury duty, bereavement pay,
break or relief time;
6. Copy of company handbook covering practices
and policies currently governing employees as to
discipline, rules and regulations;
7. Copy of pension plan for hourly employees;
8. Annual Registration-Statement identifying
separated participants with different vested benefits;
9. Copy of profit sharing and 401(k) Plan; and
10. Number of work shifts and starting time of
each shift.

Although the Respondent’s answer denies that the in-
formation requested is necessary and relevant to the Un-
ion’s duties as the exclusive bargaining representative of
the unit employees, it is well established that all of the
foregoing types of information are presumptively rele-
vant for purposes of collective bargaining and must be
furnished on request. See, e.g., Cheboygan Health Care
Center, 338 NLRB No. 115 (2003); Baker Concrete
Construction, 338 NLRB No. 48 (2002), and cases cited
therein. The Respondent has not asserted any basis for
rebutting the presumptive relevance of the information,
341 NLRB No. 144
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2
apart from its contention, rejected above, that the Un-
ion’s certification is invalid.
Accordingly, we grant the Motion for Summary Judg-
ment,1 and will order the Respondent to bargain and to
furnish the requested information to the Union.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent, a Missouri cor-
poration, with an office and place of business in St. Clair,
Missouri, has been engaged in the manufacture and non-
retail sale of die castings.
During the 12-month period ending February 29, 2004,
the Respondent, in conducting its business operations
described above, purchased and received at its St. Clair,
Missouri facility goods valued in excess of $50,000 di-
rectly from points outside the State of Missouri, and sold
and shipped from its St. Clair, Missouri facility goods
valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the
State of Missouri.
We find that the Respondent is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(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.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Certification
Following the election held October 9, 2003, the Un-
ion was certified on October 17, 2003, as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the employees in
the following appropriate unit:

All full-time and regular part-time production and
maintenance employees, including material handling,
quality, and tool room employees, team leaders, and
setup specialists employed by the Respondent at its St.
Clair, Missouri facility, EXCLUDING temporary em-
ployees, office clerical and professional employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
The Union continues to be the exclusive representative un-
der Section 9(a) of the Act.
B. Refusals to Bargain
By letters dated October 31 and December 18, 2003
and January 12, 2004, the Union requested that the Re-
spondent furnish it with information. Since about Octo-
ber 31, 2003, the Respondent has failed and refused to
furnish the information. By letter dated February 19,
2004, the Union requested that the Respondent recognize

1 The Respondent’s request that the complaint be dismissed is there-
fore denied.
the Union and bargain collectively. Since about Febru-
ary 27, 2004, the Respondent has failed and refused to
recognize and bargain with the Union. We find that these
refusals constitute unlawful refusals to bargain in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By refusing to bargain with the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of employees in the
appropriate unit and to furnish the Union requested in-
formation, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 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 bargain on request with the Union and, if an
understanding is reached, to embody the understanding
in a signed agreement. We also shall order the Respon-
dent 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
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); Burnett 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, St. Clair Die Casting, L.L.C., St. Clair, Mis-
souri, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain with International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America-UAW, as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of the employees in the bargaining
unit, and refusing to furnish the Union information that is
relevant and necessary to its role as the exclusive bar-
gaining 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 exclusive
representative of the employees in the following appro-
priate unit on terms and conditions of employment, and if
an understanding is reached, embody the understanding
in a signed agreement:
ST. CLAIR DIE CASTING, L.L.C. 3

All full-time and regular part-time production and
maintenance employees, including material handling,
quality, and tool room employees, team leaders, and
setup specialists employed by the Respondent at its St.
Clair, Missouri facility, EXCLUDING temporary em-
ployees, office clerical and professional employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.

(b) Furnish the Union information it requested on Oc-
tober 31, 2003.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in St. Clair, Missouri, copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”2 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 14,
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 October 31, 2003.
(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. May 28, 2004

Robert J. Battista, Chairman

Peter C. Schaumber, Member

Dennis P. Walsh, Member

(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

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.”
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 Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey
this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.

WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with International Un-
ion, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Im-
plement Workers of America-UAW, 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 necessary to its role as the exclusive
bargaining representative 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 and regular part-time production and
maintenance employees, including material handling,
quality, and tool room employees, team leaders, and
setup specialists employed by us at our St. Clair, Mis-
souri facility, EXCLUDING temporary employees, of-
fice clerical and professional employees, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.

WE WILL furnish the Union the information it requested
on October 31, 2003.
ST. CLAIR DIE CASTING, L.L.C.