United Engine Life

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 20, 1979

242 N.L.R.B. 1340 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
United Engine Life, Division of Halle Industries, Inc.
and Sheet Metal Workers' International Associ-
ation, Local Union 170, AFL-CIO. Case 21-CA-
17558
June 20, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY, AND TRUESDALE
Upon a charge filed on February 20, 1979, by Sheet
Metal Workers' International Association, Local
Union 170, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, and
duly served on United Engine Life, Division of Halle
Industries, Inc.,' herein called Respondent, the Gen-
eral Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board,
by the Regional Director for Region 21, issued a com-
plaint on February 22, 1979, against Respondent, al-
leging that Respondent had engaged in and was en-
gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended. Copies of the charge, complaint,
and notice of hearing before an administrative law
judge were duly served on the parties to this proceed-
ing.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the com-
plaint alleges in substance that on January 8, 1979,
following a Board election in Case 21-RC-15573, the
Union was duly certified as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of Respondent's employees
in the unit found appropriate;2 and that, commencing
on or about October 6, 1978, and more particularly
on or about February 5, 1979, by letter, and at all
times thereafter, Respondent has refused, and contin-
ues to date to refuse, to bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive bargaining representative, al-
though the Union has requested and is requesting it
to do so. On March I and 6, 1979, Respondent filed
its answer to the complaint admitting in part, and
denying in part, the allegations in the complaint.
On March 15, 1979, counsel for the General Coun-
sel filed directly with the Board a Motion for Sum-
' We note that, in its answer to the Motion for Summary Judgment, Re-
spondent identifies itself as United Engine Life, A Division of American
Filtrona Corporation. There is no contention that this change reflects other
than a mere change in name. Further, our Order herein runs against "offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns" of Respondent whatever its name may
now be.
2 Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding,
Case 21-RC-15573, as the term "record" is defined in Secs. 102.68 and
102.69(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. See
LTV Electrosystems, Inc., 166 NLRB 938 (1967), enfd. 388 F.2d 683 (4th Cir.
1968); Golden Age Beverage Co., 167 NLRB 151 (1967), enfd. 415 F.2d 26
(5th Cir. 1969); Inrerlype Co. v. Penello, 269 F.Supp. 573 (D.C.Va., 1967);
Follett Corp., 164 NLRB 378 (1967), enfd. 397 F.2d 91 (7th Cir. 1968); Sec.
9(d) of the NLRA, as amended.
mary Judgment. Subsequently, on April 3, 1979, the
Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to
the Board and a Notice To Show Cause why the Gen-
eral Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment should
not be granted. Respondent thereafter filed on April
17, 1979, an answer to the Motion for Summary
Judgment.
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.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following:
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
In its answer to the complaint and response to the
Motion for Summary Judgment, Respondent, in sub-
stance, contends that the certification is invalid for
the reasons stated in its objections to the election.
A review of the record in the representation pro-
ceeding, Case 21-RC-15573, discloses that an elec-
tion directed by the Regional Director was held on
August 18, 1978, and won by the Union. Respondent
filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results
of the election which, in substance, alleged that (I)
during the preelection critical period the Union, its
agents, employees who held themselves out to be
agents of the Union, and employee supporters of the
Union threatened, restrained, and coerced employees
by threatening employees that they would call the
U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service and
have the employees deported to Mexico if the em-
ployees did not vote for the Union; and (2) these
threats carried great weight because immigration
agents had raided Respondent after the Union was
defeated 2-1/2 years previously.
After investigation, the Regional Director issued
his Report on Objections on October 3, 1978, recom-
mending that Respondent's objections be overruled in
their entirety and certifying the Union. The Regional
Director found that Respondent had presented no
evidence, and none was disclosed by the investiga-
tion, to establish that the employees making the al-
leged statements concerning notification of the U.S.
Immigration and Naturalization Service were agents
of the Union; thus, the statements could not be attrib-
uted to the Union but only to third parties. The Re-
gional Director found that such third-party conduct
was not so aggravated in character as to destroy the
atmosphere for expression of employee free choice in
the election.
Thereafter, Respondent filed timely exceptions
with the Board to the Regional Director's report. On
January 8, 1979, the Board issued a Decision and
Certification of Representative in which it adopted
242 NLRB No. 196
1340
UNITED ENGINE LIFE
the Regional Director's findings and recommenda-
tions and certified the Union as the bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in the appropriate unit. In
so doing, the Board necessarily determined that there
were no issues of fact or law warranting a hearing.
It thus appears that Respondent is attempting in
this proceeding to relitigate issues fully litigated and
finally determined in the representation proceeding.
It is well settled that in the absence of newly dis-
covered or previously unavailable evidence or special
circumstances a respondent in a proceeding alleging a
violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled to relitigate
issues which were or could have been litigated in a
prior representation proceeding.'
All issues raised by Respondent in this proceeding
were or could have been litigated in the prior repre-
sentation proceeding, and Respondent does not offer
to adduce at a hearing any newly discovered or previ-
ously unavailable evidence, nor does it allege that any
special circumstances exist herein which would re-
quire the Board to reexamine the decision made in
the representation proceeding. We therefore find that
Respondent has not raised any issue which is prop-
erly litigable in this unfair labor practice proceeding.
Accordingly, we grant the Motion for Summary
Judgment.
On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
At all times material herein, Respondent, a Dela-
ware corporation, has maintained an office and place
of business at Santa Fe Springs, California, where it
has been engaged in the manufacture and assembly of
lube oil filters and air filters. Respondent, in the
course and conduct of its business operations, annu-
ally sells and ships goods and products valued in ex-
cess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside
the State of California.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Respon-
dent is, and has been at all times material herein, an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Sheet Metal Workers' International Association,
Local Union 170, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. N.L.R.B., 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941):
Rules and Regulations of the Board, Secs. 102.67(f) and 102.69(c).
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Representation Proceeding
1. The unit
The following employees of Respondent constitute
a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees,
shipping and receiving employees, and leadmen
employed by Respondent at its facility located at
9600 South John Street, Santa Fe Springs, Cali-
fornia, excluding all office clerical employees,
professional employees, guards and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
2. The certification
On August 18, 1978, a majority of the employees of
Respondent in said unit, in a secret-ballot election
conducted under the supervision of the Regional Di-
rector for Region 21, designated the Union as their
representative for the purpose of collective bargaining
with Respondent. The Union was certified as the col-
lective-bargaining representative of the employees in
said unit on January 8, 1979, and the Union contin-
ues to be such exclusive representative within the
meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
B. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's Refusal
Commencing on or about October 6, 1978, and at
all times thereafter, the Union has requested Respon-
dent to bargain collectively with it as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of all the employ-
ees in the above-described unit. Commencing on or
about October 6, 1978, and more particularly on or
about February 5, 1979, by letter, and continuing at
all times thereafter to date, Respondent has refused
and continues to refuse to recognize and bargain with
the Union as the exclusive representative for collec-
tive bargaining of all employees in said unit.
Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since
October 6, 1978, and at all times thereafter, refused to
bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the appropriate
unit, and that, by such refusal, Respondent has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and () of the
Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
Ill, above, occurring in connection with its operations
1341
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
described in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall
order that it cease and desist therefrom, and, upon
request, bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of all employees in the ap-
propriate unit, and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
In order to insure that the employees in the appro-
priate unit will be accorded the services of their se-
lected bargaining agent for the period provided by
law, we shall construe the initial period of certifica-
tion as beginning on the date Respondent commences
to bargain in good faith with the Union as the recog-
nized bargaining representative in the appropriate
unit. See Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., 136 NLRB
785 (1962); Commerce Company d/b/la Lamar Hotel,
140 NLRB 226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (5th
Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817 (1964); Burnett
Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419, 1421 (1964),
enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th Cir. 1965).
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record, makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Engine Life, Division of Halle Indus-
tries, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Sheet Metal Workers' International Association,
Local Union 170, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees,
shipping and receiving employees, and leadmen em-
ployed by Respondent at its facility located at 9600
South John Street, Santa Fe Springs, California, ex-
cluding all office clerical employees, professional em-
ployees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act.
4. Since January 8, 1979, the above-named labor
organization has been and now is the certified and
exclusive representative of all employees in the afore-
said appropriate unit for the purpose of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the
Act.
5. By refusing on or about October 6, 1978, and
more particularly on or about February 5, 1979, by
letter, and at all times thereafter, to bargain collec-
tively with the above-named labor organization as the
exclusive bargaining representative of all the employ-
ees of Respondent in the appropriate unit, Respon-
dent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act.
6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respondent
has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and is
interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act and thereby has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid are unfair labor practices affect-
ing commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
United Engine Life, Division of Halle Industries,
Inc., Santa Fe Springs, California, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning
rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and con-
ditions of employment with Sheet Metal Workers' In-
ternational Association, Local Union 170, AFL-CIO,
as the exclusive bargaining representative of its em-
ployees in the following appropriate unit:
All production and maintenance employees,
shipping and receiving employees, and leadmen
employed by Respondent at its facility located at
9600 South John Street, Santa Fe Springs, Cali-
fornia, excluding all office clerical employees,
professional employees, guards and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the
Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named
labor organization as the exclusive representative of
all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms
and conditions of employment, and, if an understand-
ing is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement.
(b) Post at its Santa Fe Springs, California, facility
1342
UNITED ENGINE LIFE
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."4
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 21, after being duly signed
by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
I In the event that 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
National 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."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively
concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment with Sheet
Metal Workers' International Association, Local
Union 170, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of the employees in the bargaining unit
described below.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the
above-named Union, as the exclusive representa-
tive of all employees in the bargaining unit de-
scribed below, with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment, and, if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement. The bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees,
shipping and receiving employees, and lead-
men employed by us at our facility located at
9600 South John Street, Santa Fe Springs,
California, excluding all office clerical employ-
ees, professional employees, guards and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
UNITED ENGINE LIFE, DIVISION OF HALLE
INDUSTRIES, INC.
1343