Chicago Metallic Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 28, 1985

275 N.L.R.B. 871 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

CHICAGO METALLIC CORP. 871
Chicago Metallic Corporation and Sheet Metal
Workers' International Association, Local
Union 170, AFL-CIO. Case 21-CA-23761
28 June 1985
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
HUNTER AND DENNIS
Upon a charge filed by the Sheet Metal Work-
ers' International , Association, Local Union 170,
AFL-CIO, the Union, on 27 February 1985,1 the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board issued a complaint on 1 April against the
Company, the Respondent, alleging that it has vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6).and
(7) of the National Labor Relations Act.
The complaint alleges that on 30 January, fol-
lowing a Board election in Case 21-RC-16865, the
Union was certified as the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of the Company's employees
in the unit found appropriate. (Official notice is
taken of the "record" in the representation pro-
ceeding as defined in the Board's Rules and Regu-
lations , Secs. 102.68 and 102.69(g), amended Sept.
9, 1981, 46 Fed.Reg. 45922 (1981); Frontier Hotel,
265 NLRB 343 (1982).) The complaint further al-
leges that since 7 February the Company has re-
fused to bargain with the Union. The complaint
also alleges that since 26 February the Company
has failed and refused' to supply information re-
quested by the Union on 7 February which is nec-
essary for and relevant-to the Union's performance
of its function as the exclusive collective- bargaining
representative of the'unit employees. Subsequently,
the Company filed its answer dated 10 April, ad-
mitting in part and denying in part the allegations
in the complaint.
On 22 April the General Counsel filed a Motion
for Summary Judgment. On 25 April 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 Company filed
a response 29 April.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
In its answer to the complaint, the Company
admits certain factual allegations of the complaint,
but denies that it has committed the unfair labor
practices alleged. The Company in its answer also
admits that it has refused, to recognize and bargain
with the Union as the exclusive representative of
the unit employees. The Company contends that it
has no obligation to bargain with the Union, claim-
1 All dates hereafter refer to 1985 unless otherwise noted
ing that the Board's certification of the Union in
Case 21-RC-16865 was improper because of mate-
rial conduct affecting, the • election and its results.
Additionally, the Company argues that the Board
abused its discretion in adopting the administrative
law judge's findings of fact and conclusions of law
in a consolidated unfair labor -practice and repre-
sentation proceeding.2
A review of the record reveals that the Compa-
ny is attempting to relitigate the identical issues
which were considered by the Board in the prior
proceeding and which were found to be without
merit.
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(1) and 102.69(c) of the Board's
Rules and Regulations.
All issues raised by the Company in this pro-
ceeding concerning the Union's certification' were
or could have been litigated in the prior proceed-
ing. The Company does not.offer to adduce at a
hearing' any - newly, discovered, or previously un-
available evidence, nor does it allege any special
circumstances that would require the Board to re-
examine the decision made in the underlying pro-
ceeding : We therefore find that the Company has
not raised any issue that is properly litigable in this
unfair labor •piactice proceeding concerning those
issues.. _ .
.
By letter dated 7 February, the Union,requested
the Company to; provide it with information per-
taining to the unit employees' rates of pay, benefits,
seniority dates, work rules, and related informa-
tion.3 Since 26'February, the Company has refused
,to furnish the Union with any of the requested -in-
formation.
The General Counsel alleges in the complaint
that this information is necessary for and relevant
to the Union's performance of its function as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
2 The Board 's decision is reported at 273 NLRB 1677 (1985)
3 More specifically, the Union requested the name, address , telephone
number, birth date, classification , wage rate, and date of hire of each unit
employee, a list of benefits including past paid vacations , past paid holi-
days, number acid names of holidays, sick leave, jury duty, funeral leave,
and any other benefits , a list of all wage and benefit increases given to
each employee during the last 12-month period, a copy of the insurance
plan and retirement fund trust agreement , including information on the
cost of these programs and how the cost is allocated, past classification
and starting rates including progression schedules on each classification,
past overtime provisions , past practices on part-time employees and on
"disciplinary and discharge and safety rule book ," and on leave of ab-
sences, including copies of forms signed by employees
275 NLRB No. 122
872 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the unit employees. In its answer to, the complaint
the Company admits the receipt of the Union's in-
formation request, but generally denies the relevan-
cy of the requested information, and alleges that no
bargaining obligation with the Union exists.
It is well established that such information con-
cerning bargaining unit employees is presumptively
relevant for purposes of collective bargaining and
must be provided on request to the employee's bar-
gaining representative.4 Furthermore, -a union is
not required to demonstrate the exact relevance of
such information unless the employer has submitted
evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption of rel-
evance.5 Accordingly, since the information con-
cerning unit employees requested by the Union is
presumptively relevant and the Company has nei-
ther rebutted this presumption nor shown that ma-
terial issues of fact exist, we grant the General
Counsel''s Motion for Summary Judgment as it re-
lates to the Union's request for the information per-
taining to the unit employees.
On the entire record, the Board makes the fol-
lowing
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
The Company, a corporation, is engaged in the
manufacture, sale, and distribution of ceiling sys-
tems at its facility in Vernon, California. Annually,
in the normal course and conduct of its business ac-
tivities, it sells and ships goods and products valued
in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located
outside the State of California. 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 5 November 1981
the Union was certified on 30 January as the col-
lective-bargaining representative of the employees
in the following appropriate unit:
All production and maintenance employees
and shipping and receiving employees, includ-
ing leadpersons, employed by Chicago Metal-
lic Corporation at its facility at 5501 Downey
Road, Vernon, California, excluding all other
employees, office clerical employees, manage-
rial employees, confidential employees, profes-
° See, e g, Mobay Chemical Corp, 233 NLRB 109, 110 (1977)
s Fairfield Daily Republic, 275 NLRB 7 (1985), Grand Islander Health
Care Center, 256 NLRB 1255 (1981)
sional employees and guards 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
By letter dated 7 February, the Union requested
the Company to bargain and to provide it with cer-
tain information concerning unit employees neces-
sary for and relevant to the Union's performance of
its function as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of the unit employees. Since 7 February, the
Company has refused to bargain with the Union.
Since 26 February, the Company has refused to
furnish the Union with the requested information.
We find that these refusals constitute unlawful re-
fusals to bargain in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By refusing on and after .7 February to bargain
with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargain-
ing representative of employees in the appropriate
unit, and by refusing on and after 26 February to
provide the Union with the requested information
concerning unit employees, the Company has en-
gaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
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
to cease and desist, to bargain on request with the
Union, and, if an understanding is 'reached, to
embody the understanding in a signed agreement.
We shall also order the Respondent, on request, to
supply the Union with the information it requested
which is necessary for and relevant to the Union's
performance of its function as the exclusive repre-'
sentative of the unit employees.
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).
CHICAGO METALLIC CORP. - ' 873
,ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that
the Respondent, Chicago Metallic Corporation,
Vernon, California, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a).-Refusing to bargain with Sheet Metal Work-
ers' International Association, Local Union, 170,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of the employees in the bargaining unit.
(b) Refusing to supply the Union with the infor-
mation it requested which is necessary for and rele-
vant to its role as exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of the unit employees.
(c) 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:
All production and maintenance employees
and shipping and receiving employees, includ-
ing leadpersons, employed by Chicago Metal-
lic Corporation at its facility at 5501 Downey
Road, Vernon, California, excluding all other
employees, office clerical employees, manage-
rial employees, confidential employees, profes-
sional employees and guards and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
(b) On request, furnish the Union with the infor-
mation it requested in its 7 February letter which is
necessary for and relevant to the'Union's role as
exclusive bargaining representative of the employ-
ees in the bargaining unit.
(c) Post of its facility in Vernon, California,
copies of the attached notice -marked "Appendix. 916
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 21, after being signed
by the Respondent's authorized representative,
shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive
6 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 Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board "
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.
(d) Notify the Regional Director in writing
within 20 days from the date of this Order what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply.
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 the Sheet
Metal Workers' International Association, Local
Union 170, AFL-CIO (the Union), as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the bargaining
unit. -
WE WILL NOT refuse to supply the Union with
information it requested which is necessary for an
relevant to its role .as exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of the unit employees.
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 production and maintenance employees
and shipping and receiving employees, includ-
ing leadpersons, employed by Chicago. Metal-
lic Corporation at its facility at 5501 Downey
Road, Vernon, California, excluding all other
employees, office clerical employees, manage-
rial employees, confidential employees, profes-
sional employees and guards and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
WE WILL, on request, supply the Union with in-
formation necessary for and relevant to its role as
exclusive bargaining rerpresentative of the unit em-
ployees requested in the Union's 7 February 1985.
letter.
CHICAGO METALLIC CORPORATION