Blades Manufacturing Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 17, 1969

174 N.L.R.B. 937 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

BLADES MANUFACTURING CORP. 937
Blades Manufacturing Corporation and Berkshire
Manufacturing Corporation and Chauffeurs,
Teamsters and Helpers Local Union No. 878,
affiliated with the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America . Case 26-CA-3126
January 17, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On October 23, 1968, Trial Examiner Charles W.
Schneider issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondents had
engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that they cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision' Thereafter, Respondents filed exceptions
to the Trial Examiner's Decision, and the General
Counsel filed an answering brief to Respondents'
exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's
Decision, the exceptions and the answering brief,
and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner, except as modified herein.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and
hereby orders that the Respondents, Blades
Manufacturing Corporation and Berkshire
Manufacturing Corporation, Rector, Arkansas, their
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order, as herein modified.
I Modify paragraph A by changing "Respondent
commences" to the plural "Respondents
commence."
2. Modify subparagraph 2(b) by changing "an
authorized representative" to "authorized
representatives" and by changing the singular
"Respondent" to the plural "Respondents" where it
appears in this subparagraph.
'The Trial Examiner inadvertently referred to Blades Manufacturing
Corporation and Berkshire Manufacturing Corporation in the singular
"Respondent", the correct characterization is "Respondents" as used
herein
TRIAL EXAMINER ' S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Representation Proceeding'
CHARLES W SCHNEIDER, Trial Examiner On February
1, 1968, an election in an agreed upon appropriate
bargaining unit was conducted at the Rector, Arkansas,
plant of Blades Manufacturing Corporation and Berkshire
Manufacturing Corporation, herein jointly called
Respondent, pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification
Upon Consent Election signed by Respondent and
Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local Union No 878,
affiliated with the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, herein called the Union, and approved by the
Acting Regional Director for Region 26 on January 8,
1968. Of an election unit of approximately 169 eligible
voters, 115 votes were cast for the Union, 21 votes were
cast against the Union, I was void and 1 was challenged
Pursuant to timely objections to conduct affecting the
results of the election, filed by Respondent on February 5,
1968, an investigation was conducted by the Regional
Director in accordance with Section 102 69 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. As a result
of such investigation, a Report on Objections was issued
by the Regional Director for Region 26 of the Board on
February 29, 1968, in which he recommended that
Objection 1 be sustained and Objections 2 and 3 be
overruled, and further recommended that the election be
set aside and a new election directed.
No exceptions to the Regional Director's report on
objections were filed, and on March 15, 1968, the Board,
in its Decision, Order, and Direction of Second Election,
adopted the Regional Director's recommendations and
directed a second election among the employees in the
stipulated unit
On April 22 and 23, 1968, a second election was
conducted at the Rector, Arkansas, plant of Respondent,
pursuant to the Board direction mentioned above At that
time, of a unit of 131 eligible voters, 78 votes were cast
for the Union, 24 votes were cast against the Union and 8
ballots were challenged.
On April 29, 1968, Respondent filed timely Objections
to Conduct Affecting the Results of the Election, a copy
of which was duly served on the Union Pursuant to
Section 102 69 of the Board's Rules and Regulations,
Series 8, as amended, an investigation of the objections
was made. As a result of such investigation, a Report on
Objections was issued by the Regional Director for
Region 26 of the Board on May 24, 1968, in which he
recommended that the objections be overruled in their
entirety and recommended that the Board certify the
Union as the exclusive representative of the unit
employees within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
On May 31, 1968, Respondent filed exceptions to the
Regional Director's report on objections On June 27,
'Administrative or official notice is taken of the record in the
representation proceeding, Case 26-RC-3069, as the term "record" is
defined in Sec 102 68 and 102 69(f) of the Board's Rules and Regulations
and Statements of Procedure, National Labor Relations Board Series 8, as
revised January 1, 1965 See LTV Electrosystems, Inc , 166 NLRB No
81, enfd 388 F 2d 683 (C A 4, 1968), Golden Age Beverage Co , 167
NLRB No 24, Intertype Co v N L R B, 401 F 2d 41 (C A 4, 1968),
Follett Corp , et al, 164 NLRB No 47, enfd 397 F 2d 91 (C A 7, 1968),
Sec 9(d) of the NLRA
174 NLRB No. 27
938 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1968, the Board issued its Decision and Certification of
Representative in which it found that the exceptions
"raised no material or substantial issues of fact or law
which would warrant a hearing or reversal of the Regional
Director's findings and recommendations " Accordingly,
the Board adopted the Regional Director's findings and
recommendations, and certified the Union as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
The Complaint Case
On July 19, 1968, a charge alleging that the
Respondent refused to bargain was filed by the Union and
on August 9, 1968, the Union filed a first amended
charge Pursuant to such charges, the Regional Director
for the 26th Region issued a Complaint and Notice of
Hearing on August 15, 1968, alleging violation of Sections
8(a)(1) and (5) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act, by refusing to
bargain with the Union on request. On August 23, 1968,
Respondent filed its Answer to the complaint in which
certain allegations of the complaint were admitted and
others denied
In its answer Respondent, inter alia , admitted the
following allegations of the complaint (1) the filing and
service of charge, (2) the jurisdictional allegations, (3) the
election was held, and that a majority of the determinative
votes were cast in favor of the Union, (4) the Union has
requested Respondent to bargain collectively, and (5)
Respondent has refused and continues to refuse to
bargain. Respondent denies the allegations in the
complaint to the effect that (1) the unit involved is
appropriate, (2) the Union has been and is now the
exclusive bargaining representative for purposes of
collective bargaining of the majority of employees in the
appropriate unit, and (3) by refusing to bargain, the
Respondent did engage in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
The Respondent affirmatively asserts in its answer that
the Union engaged in conduct violative of the Act and
precluding a fair and impartial election, and, further, that
the Regional Director's refusal to grant a hearing was
arbitrary and capricious and resulted in a denial of due
process of law in violation of the United States
Constitution.
Under date of August 29, 1968, counsel for the General
Counsel filed a motion by General Counsel for Judgment
on the Pleadings, contending that the pleadings,
considered together with the official Board record and the
underlying representation proceeding, Case 26-RC-3069,
raised no issues requiring a hearing, that Respondent's
defense set forth in its Answer raises no litigable question
of fact, and that as a matter of law, Respondent has no
valid defense to the complaint
On September 3, 1968, 1 issued an order directing the
parties to show cause as to whether or not General
Counsel's motion should be granted. It was stated in the
order that "if no response disclosing material unresolved
issues litigable before and requiring hearing by a Trial
Examiner is filed by September 20, 1968, the Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings may be granted forthwith "
No response has been received though service of the order
to show cause has been made.
On October 9, 1968, Counsel for the General Counsel
filed a Renewal of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings,
pointing out that he had received no response to the order
to show cause.
Ruling on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
It is established Board policy, in the absence of newly
discovered or previously unavailable evidence or special
circumstances, not to permit litigation before a Trial
Examiner in an unfair labor practice case of issues which
were or could have been litigated in a prior related
representation proceeding I The Respondent's answer
merely reraises issues decided by the Board in the
representation case
Respondent offers no evidence not previously tendered
or any indication of special circumstances A hearing is
not a matter of right in connection with the disposition of
objections to the election, unless substantial and material
issues are raised by the objections' That there are no such
issues here has already been decided by the Board
There being no unresolved issues requiring an
evidentiary hearing, or newly discovered or previously
unavailable evidence or special circumstances, the
certification of the Board constitutes the law of the case at
this stage of the proceeding The motion for judgment on
the pleadings is therefore granted.
On the basis of the record I make the following
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent Blades is now, and has been at all
times material herein, a Missouri corporation with a plant
located at Rector, Arkansas, where it is engaged in the
manufacture of precision aircraft parts.
The Respondent Berkshire is now, and has been at all
times material herein, an Arkansas corporation with a
plant located at Rector, Arkansas, where it is engaged in
the manufacture of precision aircraft parts
During the past 12 months, the Respondent Blades, in
the course and conduct of its business operations,
manufactured and shipped from its Rector, Arkansas,
plant, products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to
points located outside the State of Arkansas, and, during
the same period, received goods and products valued in
excess of $50,000 directly from points located outside the
State of Arkansas
During the past 12 months, the Respondent Berkshire,
in the course and conduct of its business operations,
manufactured and shipped from its Rector, Arkansas,
plant, products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to
points located outside the State of Arkansas, and, during
the same period, received goods and products valued in
excess of $50,000 directly from points located outside the
State of Arkansas
Respondents Blades and Berkshire are now, and have
been at all times material herein, affiliated business
concerns with common officers, ownership, and directors,
and they constitute a single integrated business enterprise,
whose agents formulate and administer a common labor
policy affecting the employees of Blades and Berkshire.
'Howard Johnson Company. 164 NLRB 801, Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company, 163 NLRB 579 See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co v
NLRB, 313 US 146, 162 (1941), Rules and Regulations and
Statements of Procedure, National Labor Relations Board , Series 8, as
revised January 1, 1965, Sec 102 67(f) and 102 69(c)
'As the court of appeals said in the case of Air Control Window
Products of St Petersburg, Inc , 335 F 2d 245, 249 (C A 5, 1964) "If
there is nothing to hear , then a hearing is a senseless and useless
formality."
BLADES MANUFACTURING CORP. 939
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is now and has been at all times material
herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
As has been seen, the Respondent's Answer, without
explanation, denies the appropriateness of the election
unit. That unit was stipulated by the Respondent to be
appropriate, and on the basis of the stipulation two
elections were held therein At this late date the
Respondent's denial of the appropriateness of the unit is
untimely. In the absence of persuasive ground therefore
the Respondent is now estopped from contesting the
validity of its stipulation See The Baker and Taylor Co ,
109 NLRB 245, and cases cited in fn 2; Growers
Warehouse Co , Inc , 114 NLRB 1570, 1573; A Harris &
Co, 116 NLRB 1628, Montgomery Ward & Co, Inc.,
123 NLRB 135; Allis Chambers Mfg. Co, 117 NLRB
744.
The following employees are therefore found to
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act
All production and maintenance employees, janitors and
truckdrivers employed by Blades Manufacturing
Corporation and Berkshire Manufacturing Corporation
at their Rector, Arkansas, plant, but excluding all office
clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
On April 22 and 23, 1968, a majority of Respondent's
employees in the appropriate unit selected the Union as
their collective bargaining representative in a secret-ballot
election conducted under the supervision of the Regional
Director for Region 26 of the National Labor Relations
Board At all times since April 23, 1968, and continuing
to date, the Union has been the representative for
purposes of collective bargaining of the employees in the
said unit, and by virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act, has
been, and is now, the exclusive representative of all
employees in the said unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other terms and conditions of
employment
On or about July 10, 1968, and at all times thereafter,
Respondent refused, and continues to refuse, to bargain
collectively with the Union as the bargaining
representative of the employees in the appropriate unit,
although requested so to bargain with the Union. By the
foregoing action, the Respondent has refused to bargain
collectively in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act and
has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the
entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the Act, I recommend that the Board issue the following
ORDER
A. For purposes of determining the effective period of
duration of the certification , the initial year of
certification shall be deemed to begin on the date the
Respondent commences to bargain in good faith with the
Union as the recognized bargaining representative in an
appropriate unit.4
B Blades Manufacturing Corporation and Berkshire
Manufacturing Corporation, their officers, agents,
successors , and assigns , shall.
1. Cease and desist from.
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Chauffeurs,
Teamsters and Helpers Local Union No 878, affiliated
with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as
the exclusive collective bargaining representative of the
employees in the following appropriate unit.
All production and maintenance employees, janitors and
truckdrivers employed by Blades Manufacturing
Corporation and Berkshire Manufacturing Corporation
at their Rector, Arkansas, plant, but excluding all office
clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Interfering with the efforts of said Union to
negotiate for or represent the employees in the said
appropriate unit as the exclusive collective bargaining
representative.
2 Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with Chauffeurs,
Teamsters and Helpers Local Union No. 878, affiliated
with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours
of work and other terms and conditions of employment
and embody in a signed agreement any understanding
reached.
(b) Post at their Rector, Arkansas, plant copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director of
Region 26, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of the Respondent, shall be posted by the
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, in writing, within 20
days from receipt of this Recommended Order, what steps
it has taken to comply herewith 6
'The purpose of this provision is to insure that the employees in the
appropriate unit will be accorded the statutorily prescribed services of their
selected bargaining agent for the period provided by law See Mar-Jac
Poultry Company , Inc, 136 NLRB 783, Commerce Co, d/b /a Lamar
Hotel , 140 NLRB 226, 229, enfd 328 F 2d 600 (C A 5, 1964), Burnett
Construction Company , 149 NLRB 1419, 1421, enfd 350 F 2d 57 (C A
10, 1965)
'In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the
words , "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words, "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice in the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals , the words, "a Decree of a United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order " shall be substituted for the words, "a
Decision and Order "
'in the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
940 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner
of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to
effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with
Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local Union No
878, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, as the exclusive collective bargaining
representative of all our following employees:
All production and maintenance employees, janitors
and truckdrivers employed by us at our Rector,
Arkansas, plant, but excluding all office clerical
employees, professional employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act
WE WILL NOT interfere with the efforts of the Union
to negotiate for or represent employees as exclusive
bargaining representative.
WE WILL bargain collectively with the Union as
exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in
the appropriate unit and if an understanding is reached
we will sign a contract with the Union.
Dated By
BLADES MANUFACTURING
CORPORATION AND
BERKSHIRE
MANUFACTURING
CORPORATION
(Employer)
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 746 Federal
Office Building, 167 North Main Street, Memphis,
Tennessee, Telephone 534-3161