UNF WEST, INC.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 15, 2015

362 NLRB No. 117 (N.L.R.B. 2015)

362 NLRB No. 117
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.
UNF West, Inc. and International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Local 63. Case 21–CA–144972
June 15, 2015
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS HIROZAWA
AND MCFERRAN
This is a refusal-to-bargain case in which the Re-
spondent is contesting the Union’s certification as bar-
gaining representative in the underlying representation
proceeding. Pursuant to a charge filed by International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 63 (the Union) on Jan-
uary 22, 2015, the General Counsel issued the complaint
on February 10, 2015, alleging that UNF West, Inc. (the
Respondent) has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act by refusing the Union’s request to recognize and
bargain and to furnish relevant and necessary infor-
mation following the Union’s certification in Case 21–
RC–103281. (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 of the complaint, and asserting certain affirm-
ative defenses.
On February 25, 2015, the General Counsel filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment. On March 3, 2015, 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 requested information, but contests the validity of
the Union’s certification on the basis of its arguments,
raised and rejected in the representation proceeding, that
the certified bargaining unit is inappropriate, and that
because the Board lacked a quorum, its appointment of
the Regional Director for Region 21 is void and the
Board cannot apply its decision in Specialty Healthcare
and Rehabilitation Center of Mobile, 357 NLRB No. 83,
slip op. at 8–9 (2011), enfd. sub. nom. Kindred Nursing
Centers East v. NLRB, 727 F.3d 552 (6th Cir. 2013).1

1 The Respondent’s arguments regarding the Board’s lack of a
quorum were specifically rejected in the Board’s October 29, 2014
Order denying its request for review in Case 21–RC–103281.
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 infor-
mation. The complaint alleges, and the Respondent ad-
mits, that on about November 18, 2014, the Union re-
quested in writing that the Respondent furnish it with the
following information: the detailed SPD for medical,
dental, vision and 401(k) plans; and an employee roster
including name, date of hire, address, rate of pay and
date of birth of all employees.2 It is well established that
information concerning the terms and conditions of em-
ployment of unit employees is presumptively relevant for
purposes of collective bargaining and must be furnished
on request. See, e.g., Metro Health Foundation, Inc.,
338 NLRB 802, 803 (2003). The Respondent has not
asserted any basis for rebutting the presumptive rele-
vance of the information. Rather, the Respondent raises
as an affirmative defense its contention, rejected above,
that the Union was improperly certified. We find that the
Respondent unlawfully refused to furnish the information
sought by the Union.
Accordingly, we grant the Motion for Summary Judg-
ment.3
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent, a corporation
with a facility located at 22150 Goldencrest Drive,
Moreno Valley, California, has been engaged in the dis-
tribution of natural, organic, and specialty foods.
During the 12-month period ending May 24, 2013, a
representative period, the Respondent sold and shipped
from its Moreno Valley, California facility goods valued
in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the State
of California.
We find that the Respondent is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and

2 The Union’s November 18, 2014 letter to the Respondent is at-
tached to the General Counsel’s motion as Exh. G.
3 The Respondent’s request that the complaint be dismissed is there-
fore denied.
2 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(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 a representation election held on July 19,
2013, the Union was certified on November 13, 2014, as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of em-
ployees in the following appropriate unit:
All full-time and regular part-time truck drivers em-
ployed by Respondent at its facility located at 22150
Goldencrest Drive, Moreno Valley, CA; excluding all
other employees, office clerical, professional employ-
ees, confidential employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
The Union continues to be the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the unit employees under Sec-
tion 9(a) of the Act.
B. Refusal to Bargain
By letters dated November 18, and December 8, 2014,
the Union requested that the Respondent bargain collec-
tively with it as the exclusive collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of the unit. By letter dated November 18,
2014, the Union also requested that the Respondent pro-
vide it with the information set forth above that is neces-
sary for, and relevant to, the Union’s performance of its
duties as the collective-bargaining representative of the
unit employees. Since about December 5, 2014, the Re-
spondent has failed and refused to bargain collectively
with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative
of the unit employees. We find that this failure and re-
fusal constitutes an unlawful failure and refusal to recog-
nize and bargain with the Union in violation of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By failing and refusing since December 5, 2014, to
recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of employees in the
appropriate unit, and by failing and refusing to furnish
the Union with the requested information described
above, the Respondent has been 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 recognize and bargain on request with the Un-
ion and, if an understanding is reached, to embody the
understanding in a signed agreement. We shall also or-
der the Respondent to provide the Union with the infor-
mation it requested on November 18, 2014.
To ensure that employees are accorded the services of
their selected bargaining agent for the period provided by
law, we shall construe the initial period of the certifica-
tion as beginning the date that the Respondent begins to
bargain in good faith with the Union. Mar-Jac Poultry
Co., 136 NLRB 785 (1962); accord Burnett Construction
Co., 149 NLRB 1419, 1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57
(10th Cir. 1965); Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229
(1962), enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied
379 U.S. 817 (1964).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, UNF West, Inc., Moreno Valley, California,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 63 as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the bargaining unit.
(b) Failing and refusing to furnish the Union with re-
quested information that is necessary and relevant to its
role as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of the unit employees.
(c) 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 collective-bargaining representative of the employ-
ees in the following appropriate unit on terms and condi-
tions of employment and, if an understanding is reached,
embody the understanding in a signed agreement:
All full-time and regular part-time truck drivers em-
ployed by Respondent at its facility located at 22150
Goldencrest Drive, Moreno Valley, CA; excluding all
other employees, office clerical, professional employ-
ees, confidential employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
(b) Furnish the Union in a timely manner the infor-
mation it requested on November 18, 2014.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Moreno Valley, California, copies of the
attached notice marked “Appendix.”4 Copies of the no-

4 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-
UNF WEST INC. 3
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 21, after being signed by the Respondent’s author-
ized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent
and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of
paper notices, notices shall be distributed electronically,
such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet
site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent
customarily communicates with its employees by such
means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent 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 Respondent has
gone out of business or closed the facility involved in
these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and
mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all cur-
rent employees and former employees employed by the
Respondent at any time since December 5, 2014.
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 21 a sworn certifi-
cation of a responsible official on a form provided by the
Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has
taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. June 15, 2015
______________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Chairman
______________________________________
Kent Y. Hirozawa, Member
______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, 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
violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and
obey this notice.

ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
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 fail and refuse to recognize and bargain
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 63 as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the
employees in the bargaining unit.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to furnish the Union with
requested information that is relevant and necessary to its
role as the exclusive collective-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
listed above.
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 fol-
lowing bargaining unit:
All full-time and regular part-time truck drivers em-
ployed by us at our facility located at 22150
Goldencrest Drive, Moreno Valley, CA; excluding all
other employees, office clerical, professional employ-
ees, confidential employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
WE WILL furnish the Union in a timely manner with
the information it requested on November 18, 2014.
UNF WEST, INC.
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/21-CA-144972 or by using the QR
code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the
decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor
Relations Board, 1099 14th Street, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273–1940.