Bakery, Incorporated, TheDownload PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsDec 16, 1981259 N.L.R.B. 766 (N.L.R.B. 1981) Copy Citation 766 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Bakery, Incorporated and American Federation why the General Counsel's Motion for Summary of Grain Millers, AFL-CIO, Local 58. Case 8- Judgment should not be granted. Respondent CA-14856-2 thereafter filed a response to the Notice To Show December 16 1981 Cause and a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. December 16, 1Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the DECISION AND ORDER National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. ZIMMERMAN Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Upon a charge filed on May 15, 1981, an amend- Board makes the following: ed charge filed on June 4, 1981, and a second Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment amended charge filed on June 25, 1981, by Ameri- can Federation of Grain Millers, AFL-CIO, Local In its answer to the complaint, its response to the 58, herein called the Union, and duly served on Notice To Show Cause, and its Cross-Motion for The Bakery, Incorporated, herein called Respond- Summary Judgment, Respondent admits its refusal ent, the General Counsel of the National Labor to bargain with the Union and to supply the Union Relations Board, by the Regional Director for with the requested information. Respondent denies, Region 8, issued a complaint on June 29, 1981, however, that it thereby violated Section 8(a)(5) against Respondent, alleging that Respondent had and (1) of the Act, arguing that the election held engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac- on November 13, 1980, should have been set aside tices affecting commerce within the meaning of for the reasons set forth in its exceptions to the Re- Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of gional Director's Report on Objections to Election. the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Respondent also asserts that, since the Regional Di- Copies of the charge and complaint and notice of rector did not conduct a hearing on Respondent's hearing before an administrative law judge were objections to the election, all affidavits referred to duly served on the parties to this proceeding. and relied on in his Report on Objections should With respect to the unfair labor practices, the be included in and made part of the record in Case complaint alleges in substance that on March 23, 8-RC-12270. 1981, following a Board election in Case 8-RC- Review of the record herein, including the 12270,1 the Union was duly certified as the exclu- record in Case 8-RC-12270, shows that on No- sive collective-bargaining representative of Re- vember 13, 1980, an election was held pursuant to spondent's employees in the unit found appropriate; a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Elec- and that, commencing on or about May 11, 1981, tion in which a majority of the unit employees des- and at all times thereafter, Respondent has refused, ignated the Union as their representative for pur- and continues to date to refuse, to bargain collec- poses of collective bargaining. Thereafter, Re- tively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining spondent filed timely objections to the conduct of representative, although the Union has requested the election alleging, inter alia, that the Petitioner and is requesting it to do so, and in addition has re- engaged in improper preelection offers to waive its fused and continues to date to refuse, as requested initiation fee for any employee who joined the Pe- by the Union, to provide the Union with informa- titioner prior to the election and that such conduct tion necessary for collective bargaining. On July interfered with the holding of a free election. The 10, 1981, Respondent filed its answer to the com- objections were overruled in their entirety by the plaint admitting in part, and denying in part, the al- Regional Director in his Report on Objections, legations in the complaint. issued December 12, 1980. In so doing, the Region- On July 23, 1981, counsel for the General Coun- al Director stated that the only evidence that was sel filed directly with the Board a Motion for Sum- presented concerning an objectionable waiver of mary Judgment. Subsequently, on July 29, 1981, initiation fees under N.L.R.B. v. Savair Manufactur- the Board issued an order transferring the proceed- ing Co., 414 U.S. 270 (1975), was the testimony of ing to the Board and a Notice To Show Cause an employee witness that she believed she had been told by another employee that the waiver was con- 'Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding, tingent upon signing a union membership card Case 8-RC-12270, as the term "record" is defined in Sees. 102.68 and prior to the election. The Regional Director found 102.69(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. See LTV Electrosystemsn Inc., 166 NLRB 938 (1967), enfd. 388 F.2d 683 (4th there was no evidence that the employee alleged to Cir. 1968); Golden Age Beverage Co., 167 NLRB 151 (1967), enfd. 415 have made the statement was acting as an agent of F.2d 26 (5th Cir. 1969); Intertype Co. v. Penello, 269 F.Supp. 573 the Petitioner and he concluded that such a tate- (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. ment by one employee to another employee would 259 NLRB No. 99 te December , P rsuant B o a rd m a k e s t h e ll i : fil , , , 1 , , i t,.issued , , . . , t l t ' ffi i l Up Uni C , is fi i . . a i t t l ti . i l irect r found lectro yste ts. ), ci ), ,L ppt,,i n p rn lnrfp t n Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation