United States Steel Corp., Texas Works

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 25, 1985

276 N.L.R.B. 614 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD-
United States Steel Corporation, Texas Works and
United Steelworkers of America , District 37,
AFL-CIO, CLC. Case 23-CA-9980
25. September 1985
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
DENNIS AND BABSON
Upon a charge filed by ' the -Union 13 March
1985, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board issued a complaint r April 1985
against the Company, the Respondent , alleging that
it has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act.
The complaint alleges that on 16 January 1985,
following a Board election in , Case 23-RC-5239,
the Union was certified as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the Company's em-
ployees in the unit found appropriate. (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), amended
Sept. 9, 1981, 46 Fed.Reg. 45922 (1981); Frontier
Hotel, 265 NLRB 343 (1982).) The complaint fur-
ther alleges that since 23 January 1985 the Compa-
ny has refused to bargain with the Union. On 15
April 1985 the Company filed its answer admitting
in part and denying in part the allegations in the
complaint.
On 8 May 1985 the General Counsel filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment. On 9 May 1985
the Board issued an order transferring the proceed-
ing to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why
the motion should not be granted." The Company
did not file a response.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
In its answer to the complaint the Company
admits its refusal to bargain and to furnish informa-
tion that is necessary and relevant to the Union's
role as bargaining representative. The Company
denies, however, that the unit of employees certi-
fied in the representation proceeding is appropriate.
The General Counsel argues that all material issues
have been previously decided. We agree with the
General Counsel. -
Our review of the record,, including Case 23-
RC-5239, shows that a representation petition • was
filed by the Union on 22 October 1984. A hearing
was held, and the Regional Director issued a deci-
sion and direction of election. The Company filed a
request for review of the Regional Director's deci-
i On 13 May 1985 the Board issued an order correcting its 9 May 1985
order. -
276 NLRB No. 82
sion, contending that the inclusion of accounts pay-
able clerks, process observers, and dispatchers in
the bargaining unit rendered it inappropriate. The
Company's, request for review was denied, by the
Board..-An. election was held 4 January 1985, and
the Regional Director issued a Certification of
Representation on-16 January 1985.
By letter dated 17 January 1985, the Union re-
quested the' Company to. bargain and to furnish it .
certain information about the terms and conditions
of employment. On 23 January 1985 the Company'
acknowledged receipt of the bargaining demand
and information request, but refused to comply. In
so doing, the Company asserted that the certified
unit of clerical and technical employees is not ap-
propriate under the Act.
It is well settled that in the absence of newly dis-
covered and 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 that were or could have been
litigated in a prior representation proceeding.. See
Pittsburgh Glass Co. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 146, 162
(1941); Secs. 102.67(f) and 102.69(c) of the Board's
Rules and Regulations.
All issues raised by the Company were or could
have been litigated in the prior representation pro-
ceeding. The Company does not offer to adduce at
a hearing any newly discovered and previously un-
available evidence, nor does it allege any special
circumstances that would require the Board to re-
examine the decision . made in the representation
proceeding. There are no factual issues regarding
the Union's request for information because the
Company, in its'answer to the complaint, admitted
that it refused to furnish the information.2 We
therefore find that the Company has not, raised any
issue that is properly litigable in this unfair labor
practice proceeding. Accordingly we grant the
Motion for Summary Judgment.3 . -
2 The Union requested the name, classification , department , and rate of
pay of each unit employee, each unit employees' date of hire , the rates of
pay for all job classifications, including trainee rates, progression sched-
ules, job evaluation plans, incentive plans, the Employer 's practices with
respect to overtime pay, report- in pay, call -in pay, and shift differentials,
a list of all fringe benefits and all other employee benefits in effect, a
copy of insurance plans, pension plans, and other programs in effect for
unit employees, and a copy of company rules that unit employees are to
follow, including predetermined disciplinary penalties for violations The .
Company denied that portion of the complaint which alleged that the re-
quested information was necessary and relevant to the Union's perform-
ance of its function as, the exclusive bargaining representative of unit em-
ployees However, it is well established that such information is presump-
tively relevant for the purposes of collective bargaining Mobay Chemical
Corp, 233 NLRB 109, 110 (1977) Accordingly , the Respondent 's denial
is insufficient to raise issues warranting a hearing
3 Member Babson did not participate in the underlying representation
proceeding In joining his colleagues in granting the General Counsel's
Motion for Summary Judgment, he does so because the Respondent is
not entitled to litigate in this proceeding issues which could have been
litigated in the underlying representation proceeding
UNITED STATES STEEL CORP
On the entire record, the Board makes the 'fol-
lowing
FINDINGS OF FACT -
1. JURISDICTION
The Company, a Delaware corporation, manu-
factures and processes steel products at its facility
in Baytown, Texas, where it annually sells and
ships products, goods, and materials valued in
excess of $50,000 directly from its facility 'to points
located outside the State of Texas. We find that .the
Company is an employer 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 Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Certification
Following the election held 4' January 1985 the
Union was certified 16 January 1985 as the collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the employees in
the following appropriate unit:
All clerical and technical-employees, including'
process observers, 'regional systems employees,
accounts payable clerks and. -dispatchers em-
ployed by the Employer at its Baytown, Texas
plant, but excluding all other employees, in-
cluding all production. and maintenance em-
ployees, confidential employees, guards,
watchmen . 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 17 January 1985 the Union-has requested
the Company to bargain and to furnish certain in-
formation, and since 23 January 1985 the Company
has refused. We find that this refusal constitutes an
unlawful refusal to bargain in violation of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. -
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By refusing on and after 23 January 1985 to fur-
nish information and to bargain with the Union as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of employees in the appropriate unit, the Company
has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce 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
615
to cease and desist, to bargain on request with the
Union, and, if an understanding is reached, to
embody the understanding in -asigned agreement,
and, further, to provide -the Union, on request,` in-
formation necessary for collective bargaining.
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-
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, United States Steel Corporation,
Texas Works,' Baytown, Texas, its officers, agents,
successors , and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain with United Steelworkers
of America, District 37, AFL-CIO, CLC as the ex-
clusive bargaining representative of the employees
in the bargaining unit. - •
(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,
and provide the Union, on request, information
necessary for collective bargaining as it requested
in its 17 January 1985 letter:
All clerical and technical employees, including
process observers, regional systems employees,
account payable clerks and dispatchers em-
ployed by the Employer at its Baytown, Texas
plant, but excluding all other employees, in-
cluding all production and maintenance em-
ployees, confidential employees , guards,
watchmen and, supervisors as defined in the
Act.
(b) Post at its facility in Baytown, Texas, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix. 114
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-
Continued
616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 23, after being signed
by the Respondent's authorized representative,
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.
(c) Notify the Regional Director in writing
within 20 days from the date of this Order what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply.
tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al 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 the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with United
Steelworkers of America , District 37, AFL-CIO,
CLC as the exclusive representative of the employ-
ees in the bargaining unit.
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:
All clerical and technical employees , including
process observers , regional systems employees,
accounts payable clerks , and dispatchers em-
ployed by the Employer at its Baytown, Texas
plant, but excluding all other employees, in-
cluding all production and maintenance em-
ployees, confidential employees , guards,
watchmen and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
WE WILL, on request , furnish the Union, as it re-
quested in its 17 January 19 85 letter, the informa-
tion that is relevant and necessary to its rule as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the employ-
ees in the bargaining unit.
UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORA-
TION, TEXAS WORKS