The Taylor Chair Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 15, 1989

294 N.L.R.B. 1194 (N.L.R.B. 1989)

1194 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Taylor Chair Company and Furniture Workers
Division , International Union of Electronic,
Electrical , Salaried, Machine and Furniture
Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 6-CA-13036
June 15, 1989
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
CRACRAFT AND HIGGINS
On February 28, 1989, the General Counsel of
the National Labor Relations Board issued a com-
plaint alleging that the Respondent has violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act by refusing the Union's request to bar-
gain and to furnish information following the
Union's certification in Case 26-RC-6942. (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 its answer admitting in part and denying in
part the allegations in the complaint.
On April 18, 1989, counsel for the Acting Gener-
al Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.
On April 20, 1989, the Board issued an order trans-
ferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice
to Show Cause why the motion should not be
granted. The Respondent filed a response. Counsel
for the Acting General Counsel filed a response to
Respondent's partial opposition to and clarification
of Motion for Summary Judgment.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
In its answer the Respondent admits its refusal to
bargain and to furnish information requested by the
Union that is relevant and necessary to the Union's
role as bargaining representative, but the Respond-
ent attacks the validity of the Union's certification
in the representation proceeding.
All representation issues raised by the Respond-
ent were or could have been litigated in the prior
representation proceeding. The Respondent does
not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discov-
ered and previously unavailable evidence, nor does
it allege any special circumstances that would re-
quire the Board to reexamine the decision made in
the representation proceeding. We therefore find
that the Respondent has not raised any representa-
tion issue that is properly litigable in this unfair
labor practice proceeding. See Pittsburgh Plate
Glass Co. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941).
The Respondent's answer, response to the
Motion for Summary Judgment, and response to
the Notice to Show Cause admit the refusal to pro-
vide information requested by the Union by letter
dated February 7, 1989, but the Respondent con-
tends that the Union's request was overbroad. Spe-
cifically, the Respondent contends that enumerated
information items 15, 16, and 17 in the Union's
letter are not relevant and necessary to its role as
bargaining representative. Initially, we find that it
is clear from the Respondent's February 10, 1989
letter refusing the Union's request that the Re-
spondent acted with the "intention to oppose en-
forcement of the Board's Decision and Order in the
underlying cases"' and would therefore not have
complied with the Union's request even in the ab-
sence of allegedly overbroad items 15, 16, and 17.
Furthermore, counsel for the Acting General
Counsel's response to the Respondent's contentions
concerning this matter states that "the only infor-
mation encompassed by the allegations in [the]
complaint . . . relates to presumptively appropriate
information concerning unit employees including
names, job classifications, rates of pay, safety and
other terms and conditions of employment and
does not include the information requested by the
Union at paragraphs 15, 16, and 17" of its letter.
It is well established that unit employees' wage
and employment information is presumptively rele-
vant for purposes of collective bargaining and must
be furnished on request.' Except with respect to
items 15, 16, and 17 in the Union's letter, the Re-
spondent has not specifically contested the rel-
evance of other information requested there. In
light of the General Counsel's clarification dis-
claiming reliance on the three items contested,
there are no issues that would warrant a hearing in
this proceeding. Accordingly, we grant the Motion
for Summary Judgment.
On the entire record, the Board makes the fol-
lowing
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent, an Ohio corporation, manufac-
tures furniture and related products at its facility in
Clarksdale, Mississippi, where during a representa-
tive 12-month period it sold and shipped products,
goods, and materials valued in excess of $50,000 di-
rectly to points located outside the State of Missis-
sippi and it purchased and received products,
goods, and materials valued in excess of $50,000 di-
' See, e g , Masonic Hall, 261 NLRB 436 (1982), Verona Dyestuff Divi-
sion Mobay Chemical Corp, 233 NLRB 109 (1977)
294 NLRB No. 95
TAYLOR CHAIR CO
rectly from points located outside the State of Mis-
sissippi. We find that the Respondent is an employ-
er 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 Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Certification
Following the election held June 16, 1987, the
Union was certified on February 9, 1989, as the
collective-bargaining representative of the employ-
ees in the following appropriate unit:
All production and maintenance employees in-
cluding group leaders employed by the Re-
spondent at its Clarksdale , Mississippi location,
excluding all other employees , office clerical
employees, plant clerical employees , watch-
men, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
The Union continues to be the exclusive represent-
ative under Section 9(a) of the Act.
B. Refusal to Bargain
Since February 7, 1989, the Union has requested
the Respondent to provide certain information con-
cerning matters subject to collective bargaining,
and since February 10, 1989, the Respondent has
refused to provide the requested information to
which the Union is entitled and is otherwise failing
and refusing to recognize and bargain collectively
with the Union. We find that these refusals consti-
tute unlawful refusals to bargain in violation of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By refusing on and after February 10, 1989, to
bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of employees in the ap-
propriate unit and to furnish the Union requested
information , the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices 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 bargain on request with the
Union, to furnish the Union the information re-
quested and , if an understanding is reached, to
embody the understanding in a signed agreement.
To ensure that the employees are accorded the
services of their selected bargaining agent for the
period provided by law, we shall construe the ini-
1195
tial period of the certification 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, The Taylor Chair Company,
Clarksdale, Mississippi, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain with Furniture Workers
Division, International Union of Electronic, Elec-
trical, Salaried, Machine and Furniture Workers,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive 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
bargaining representative of the unit employees.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, bargain with the Union as the ex-
clusive representative of the employees in the fol-
lowing appropriate unit on terms and conditions of
employment and, if an understanding is reached,
embody the understanding in a signed agreement:
All production and maintenance employees in-
cluding group leaders employed by the Re-
spondent at its Clarksdale, Mississippi location,
excluding all other employees, office clerical
employees, plant clerical employees, watch-
men, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
(b) On request, furnish the Union information
that is relevant and necessary to its role as the ex-
clusive bargaining representative of the unit em-
ployees.
(c) Post at its facility in Clarksdale, Mississippi,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."2
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 26, after being signed
by the Respondent's authorized representative,
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 Nation-
al 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 "
1196 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent
to ensure that the notices are not altered , defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director in writing
within 20 days from the date of this Order what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply.
APPENDIX
WE WILL NOT refuse to furnish the Union informa-
tion that is relevant and necessary to its role as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the unit em-
ployees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with , restrain , or coerce you in the exer-
cise 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 bargaining unit:
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 violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with Furniture
Workers Division , International Union of Electron-
ic, Electrical , Salaried , Machine and Furniture
Workers, AFL-CIO , as the exclusive representa-
tive of the employees in the bargaining unit, and
All production and maintenance employees in-
cluding group leaders employed by the Re-
spondent at its Clarksdale , Mississippi location,
excluding all other employees , office clerical
employees , plant clerical employees , watch-
men, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
WE WILL, on request , furnish the Union informa-
tion that is relevant and necessary to its role as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the unit em-
ployees.
THE TAYLOR CHAIR COMPANY