SteinerTrucraft, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 25, 1978

237 N.L.R.B. 1079 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

STEINER TRUCRAFT
Steiner Trucraft, Inc. and United Steelworkers of
America, Local Union No. 14545, AFL-CIO-CLC.
Case 6-CA-10271
August 25, 1978
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS JENKINS. MURPHY. AND TRUESDALE
Upon charges filed on June 6, 1977, by United
Steelworkers of America, Local Union No. 14545,
AFL-CIO-CLC, herein called the Union, the Gener-
al Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board,
by the Regional Director for Region 6, issued a com-
plaint on October 28 against Steiner Trucraft. Inc..
herein called Respondent. Copies of the charge, com-
plaint, and notice of hearing before an Administra-
tive Law Judge were duly served on Respondent and
the Union. The complaint alleges, inter alia, that Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, by failing
and refusing, and continuing to fail and refuse, to
execute a collective-bargaining agreemeit embody-
ing the terms and conditions as negotiated between
Respondent and the Union, which is the exclusive
bargaining representative of Respondent's employees
in an appropriate unit, and to put into effect said
agreement.
The answer duly filed by Respondent substantially
admits jurisdiction and that it refused to execute the
collective-bargaining agreement. The answer fur-
ther denies that Respondent failed or refused, or con-
tinues to fail or refuse to put into effect the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement, and, on the contrary,.
asserts that:
[Respondent] put into effect substantially all of
the terms and conditions of said contract, begin-
ning in January, 1977 and continuing until the
date of the plant's closing, and discontinued
putting said terms and conditions into effect
only after the lawful termination of all unit em-
ployees and the closing of the plant's production
facilities.
Respondent also denies the commission of any unfair
labor practices.
On February 7, 1978, the Union. the General
Counsel, and Respondent entered into a stipulation
of facts and joint motion to transfer the proceeding
to the Board, in which they agreed that certain docu-
ments would constitute the entire record herein' and
that no oral testimony was necessary or desired by
The stipulated record consists of the charge. complaint and notice of
hearing, answer to complaint, and stipulation with attached exhibits
any of the parties. The parties expressly waived all
intermediate proceedings before an Administrative
lpaw Judge and petitioned that this case be transfer-
red to the Board for the purpose of making findings
of fact and conclusions of law and issuing an appro-
priate order, reserving to themselves the right to ob-
ject to the materiality, competency, or relevancy of
any stipulated facts.
By order dated April 13, 1978, the Board approved
the stipulation, granted the joint motion to transfer
the proceeding to the Board, and set a date for the
filing of briefs. Thereafter, the General Counsel and
the Union filed briefs which have been duly consid-
ered by the Board.
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.
I'he Board has considered the entire record herein
as stipulated by the parties as well as the briefs filed
by the Union and the General Counsel and makes
the following findings and conclusions:
FACTS
I I HE BUSINESS OF THE EMPI OYER
Respondent, a Pennsylvania corporation. engaged
in the manufacture and nonretail sale of draperies
and quilted bedspreads at its principal facility locat-
ed at Saltsburg. Pennsylvania, until April 30, 1977,
when it closed this facility for economic reasons.
During the 12-month period immediately preceding
the filing of the charge, Respondent received goods
and materials valued in excess of $50,000 for use at
its Saltsburg facility directly from suppliers located
outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. During
this same period. Respondent shipped goods and ma-
terials valued in excess of $50,000 directly to custom-
ers located outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylva-
nia.
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Respon-
dent at all times prior to the termination of its opera-
tions was engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. We further find
that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert
jurisdiction in this proceeding.
1 I.E I ABOR ORGANIZA ION INVOLs ED
The parties stipulated. and we find, that the Union
is now, and has been at all times material herein, a
labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
237 NLRB No. 163
1079
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
111. IHE UNFAIR I.ADOR PRA(I I(ES
A. The Issues
The issues herein are whether Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by (1) refusing to
sign a contract embodying the terms of an agreement
previously reached between Respondent and the
Union; and (2) ceasing to apply applicable terms of
said agreement after closing its Saltsburg facility.
B. The Stipulated Facts
The Union has been the exclusive bargaining rep-
resentative for a unit of production and maintenance
employees at Respondent's Saltsburg facility for an
unspecified number of years. The Union and Re-
spondent had entered into a series of 3-year collec-
tive-bargaining agreements covering the unit, the
most recent of which expired on December 31, 1976.
On November 11, 1976, the Union and Respondent
began bargaining for a new contract. On January 13,2
they reached agreement on the terms of a new collec-
tive-bargaining agreement and Respondent immedi-
ately implemented these terms, which were made ret-
roactive to January 1.
On March 10-prior to any formal request by the
Union that the collective-bargaining agreement be
signed-Respondent announced its decision to ter-
minate operations at its Saltsburg facility due to eco-
nomic reasons. Production at the Saltsburg facility
ceased during the week of April 18. The final day of
work for most unit employees was April 30.3 The
plant equipment was removed from the facility dur-
ing the months of May and June with some clerical
and management personnel continuing to work at
the facility through June. The parties stipulated that
the facility was and is closed and that neither the
decision to close nor the closing itself is alleged to be
unlawful.
A written agreement fully embodying the terms
and conditions as agreed by the parties on January
13, was drafted, proofread, corrected by the parties,
and then prepared in final form by Respondent at
the Union's request. On April 29, after the written
agreement was in final form, the Union requested
that Respondent sign the contract. Respondent re-
fused to execute the agreement on April 29, and con-
tinues to refuse to execute it.
On May 6, Respondent, in a letter from its attor-
ney to the Union, stated, inter a/ia. that it considered
the January 13 agreement lo have been negotiated in
good faith, to be "bona-fide," and that:
2 All dates hereinafter are 1977. unless otherwise indicated.
3A small maintenance crew sworked until June 15
. . . although written notice to close the plant
and terminate the Agreement was given on
March 10, 1977, it is advisable to formally exe-
cute the Agreement so long as you agree that the
Employer will not be required to give a second
closure and termination notice. Once you have
so advised, my client will execute the Agreement
and return it to you.
The letter further advised that Respondent would
process grievances, submit unresolved contract issues
to arbitration, pay all accrued benefits to the employ-
ees covered by the agreement, and, "provide what-
ever specific assurances the Union may request rela-
tive to the administration of the Pension Fund and
the check-off." 4
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Union contends that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by its refusal to
sign the written contract containing the terms of the
January 13 agreement, by its failure or refusal to im-
plement the terms of that agreement, and/or its fail-
ure or refusal to arbitrate disputed matters.
The General Counsel contends that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing
to sign the contract embodying the terms of the Jan-
uary 13 agreement, noting that Respondent appar-
ently conditioned execution of the contract on the
Union's abandonment of certain rights thereunder.
The General Counsel also contends that, once the
January 13 agreement was reached, each party had a
duty to execute a written embodiment of that agree-
ment upon the request of the other party, and that
Respondent's decision to close the Saltsburg facility
does not relieve Respondent of that duty.
Respondent has not filed a brief, nor has it other-
wise expressed its specific contentions with respect to
any of the issues in this case.
D. Discussion
An employer's obligation under Section 8(d) of the
Act to, upon request, execute a written contract in-
corporating any agreement reached between it and
its employees' representative is well established by
Board and court decisions.5 It is equally "well settled
that mere discontinuance in business does not render
moot issues of unfair labor practices alleged against
4 hus .although Respondent's letter suggests that Respondent was will-
ing to continue in effect whatever terms of the contract that remained appli-
cable after the closing, the wording of the letter conditioned execution of the
contract on the Unlon's assurance that it would not require Respondent to
again gie notice of the termination of employees and closing of the plant.
H J l.ie. (W-iripatn . ' L. RB.. 311 U.S. 514 (1941): Trojan Steel
(,rporation, 222 NLRB 478 1976). enfd. 551 F.2d 308 (C.A. 4. 1977): Crim-
irx, Ic . e all.. 211 NL RB 855 (1974)
1080
STEINER TRUCRAFT
Respondent." 6 Applying these two principles, we
conclude that Respondent's decision to close its
Saltsburg facility for economic reasons did not re-
lieve it of the obligation to execute the contract. and
we therefore find that by refusing to sign the written
agreement Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and
(I) of the Act.
As noted above, Respondent in its May 6 letter
apparently conditioned execution of the contract on
the Union's agreement not to require further notice
of Respondent's closing of the Saltsburg plant or ter-
mination of the employees. Although the complaint
contained no specific allegations as to Respondent's
conduct in this regard, the General Counsel correctly
states in his brief to the Board the general proposi-
tion that imposition of such a condition is unlawful.7
However, inasmuch as an independent violation of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act in this regard was
neither alleged in the complaint nor otherwise litigat-
ed, and in view of our finding that in any event Re-
spondent unlawfully refused to sign the agreement.
we find it unnecessary to determine whether
Respondent's apparent conditional agreement to ex-
ecute the contract consititutes an independent viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(5) and (1).
As to Respondent's failure or refusal, after the
closing of its facility, to continue to implement the
terms and conditions of the January 13 agreement, it
is well recognized that certain employee rights and
benefits contained in a collective-bargaining agree-
ment, i.e., severance pay, vacation pay, and pensions,
are not automatically terminated by the expiration or
termination of the contract. John Wiley & Sons v.
Livingston, 376 U.S. 543 (1964). Similarly, a contrac-
tual duty to arbitrate is not automatically extin-
guished by the termination of the contract. and the
parties to such a contract continue to have the duty
to process grievances and arbitrate disputes that in-
volve rights or benefits which accrue or vest during
the contract's term. Nolde Brothers, Inc. v. Local No.
358, Bakery & Confectionery Workers Union, AFL-
CIO, 430 U.S. 243 (1977).
Having found that Respondent was obligated to
sign the January 13 collective-bargaining agreement,
we further find, as concluded by various courts in the
above-cited cases, that Respondent's obligation to
abide by the applicable terms of the contract contin-
ued after the plant closed.
Accordingly, we find that Respondent's failure or
refusal, upon the closing of its facility, to continue to
implement and abide by whatever terms and condi-
6 Armirage Sand and Gravel. Inc., 203 NLRB 162. 166 ( 1973),. enforcement
denied 495 F.2d 759 (C A. 6. 1974).
Peerless Food Products. Inc. 231 NilRB 530 (1977): Smith'T lannagmc,,l
Corporation d/bha Frazier's Market, 197 Nl.RB 1156 1 I972)
tions of the January 13 agreement continued to be
applicable, constitutes a further violation of Section
8(a)(5) and (1 of the Act.
IV 1U11 E:II( lS()I[ I H i N VFIR L.ABOR PRA^1iI(IS ltPON
( OM\1tI R(
The activities of Respondent set forth above have
a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to
trade, traffic, and commerce among several States
and tend to lead to industrial strife burdening and
obstructing commerce.
V IHF RIM1F)Y
Having found that Respondent has engaged in an
unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. we shall order that it cease
and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative ac-
tion designed to effectuate the policy of the Act.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
on the entire record of the case, we make the follow-
ing:
CON( I. SIONS O() LAW
I. Steiner Trucraft, Inc., is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees em-
ployed by Respondent at its Saltsburg, Pennsylvania,
facility, excluding office clerical employees, mechan-
ics, confidential employees, managerial employees
and guards, professional employees and supervisors
as defined in the Act. constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. At all times material herein the Union has been
the exclusive bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the appropriate bargaining unit described
above, for the purposes of collective bargaining with-
in the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By refusing to execute the collective-bargaining
agreement embodying the terms and conditions of
employment to which the parties previously agreed,
Respondent engaged in an unfair labor practice in
violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act.
6. By failing or refusing, upon the closing of its
Saltsburg, Pennsylvania, facility, to continue to im-
plement and abide by all applicable terms and condi-
tions of the previously reached agreement, Respon-
dent engaged in an unfair labor practice in violation
of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
1081
DEtCISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATI)ONS BOARD
7. The foregoing 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 Iahbor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent.
Steiner Trucraft. Inc., Saltsburg, Pennsylvania, its of-
ficers. agents, successors, and assigns. shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Failing or refusing to execute the collective-
bargaining agreement covering the \wages, hours, and
working conditions of the unit emplo\ees, as submit-
ted for signature on April 29. 1977. and embodying
the terms of the agreement reached on Januar\ 13,
1977, between Steiner Trucraft. Inc.. and Jnited
Steelworkers of America. Local No. 14545. A:L
CIO CLC, as the exclusive bargaining representativ e
of its employees in the following described unit:
All production and maintenance employees em-
ployed by Respondent in its Saltsburg, Pennsyl-
vania, facility, excluding office clerical employ-
ees, mechanics, confidential employees.
managerial employees and guards, professional
employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Failing or refusing to continue to implement
and abide by all the applicable terms and conditions
of the agreement covering the wages, hours, and
working conditions of the unit employees, described
in paragraph l(a), above, after the closing of its Salts-
burg facility.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Upon request by the Union, sign the above-
described collective-bargaining agreement.
(b) Upon request by the Union. give retroactive
effect to all applicable terms and conditions of the
agreement, described in paragraph l(a), above.
(c) Make unit employees whole for any losses suf-
fered by reason of Respondent's refusal to execute or
give retroactve effect to the agreement. with interest
as prescribed in Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB
651 (1977).8
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to
the Board or its agents, for examination and copying.
all payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all
other records necessary to analyze the amount of
backpay due and other benefits for employees. along
with a list of the last known addresses of said em-
ploy ees.
(e) Send to each unit employee a copy of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix." 9 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 6. after being duly signed by Respondent's
representative. shall be sent to the last known ad-
dress of each employee in the unit who was em-
plo~ed by Respondent at any time between January
I. 1977, and the date that Respondent's Saltsburg,
Pennsylvania. facility was permanently closed.
(f) Notif, the Regional Director for Region 6, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply here-
with.
See genier.ll,. I I 'lnhmt,'io. A Ilt'aintll (C,. 138 Ni RB 716 (1962)
' Ii ht Cl cnl I1hai III l( Order iL enlfored hb .i judgment of a United States
( iUl of Appeals the .ordls in the notice reading "Posted h, Order of the
Ninonul I bhor Rclalitons Hoard" ,hall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
Imcl of the tited Stltes (Court of Appeals iniforcing an Order of the
Natio l I a.,,r RelaIIovis H oard-
APPENDIX
No I(ItE To EsPI.O1.o1- s
POSIED BY ORD)ER O()F Il
NAtIONAL LABOR Ri . AliONS BOARI)
An Agency of the United States Government
WEI wiii Noi fail or refuse to execute the
above-mentioned collective-bargaining agree-
ment between Steiner Trucraft. Inc.. and United
Steelworkers of America, Local No. 14545,
AFL-CIO CLC.
Wi: wu.rI No-r in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Sec-
tion 7 of the Act, which include the right to en-
gaged in self-organization. form, join, or help
unions, to bargain collectively through a repre-
sentative of their own choosing, to act together
for collective bargaining or other aid or protec-
tion, or to refrain from an)y or all of these things.
Wi Wlit .. upon request, sign the contract em-
bodying the terms of the agreement reached on
January 13, 1977. between Steiner Trucraft. Inc.,
and the United Steelworkers of America, Local
Union No. 14545, AFL-CIO-CLC, covering
employees in the following appropriate unit:
All production and maintenance employees
employed by Respondent in its Saltsburg,
Pennsylvania, facility, excluding office cleri-
cal employees, mechanics, confidential em-
1082
STEINER TRUCRAFT
ployees, managerial employees and guards,
professional employees and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
Wv: wi. give retroactive effect to all applica-
ble terms and conditions of said contract, and
WE WILL make employees whole for any losses
suffered by reason of our refusal to execute or
give retroactive effect to the agreement.
SI INiR TRI (RAI:I INC(
1083