Doren, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 21, 2001

333 N.L.R.B. 53 (N.L.R.B. 2001)

333 NLRB No. 53
1
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
Doren, Inc. and Teamsters Local Union 261 a/w In-
ternational Brotherhood Of Teamsters, AFL–
CIO. Case 6–CA–31767
February 21, 2001
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN TRUESDALE AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND HURTGEN
Pursuant to a charge filed on December 7, 2000, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board
issued a complaint on December 15, 2000, alleging that
the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the National Labor Relations Act by refusing the Union’s
request to bargain following the Union’s certification in
Case 6–RC–11825. (Official notice is taken of the “re-
cord” in the representation proceeding as defined in the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, Secs. 102.68 and
102.69(g); Frontier Hotel, 265 NLRB 343 (1982).) The
Respondent filed an answer, with defenses, admitting in
part and denying in part the allegations in the complaint.
On January 11, 2001, the Acting General Counsel filed
a Motion for Summary Judgment. On January 18, 2001,
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 Respondent filed a response.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
In its answer the Respondent admits its refusal to bar-
gain, but attacks the validity of the certification on the
basis of the Board’s disposition of a determinative chal-
lenged ballot in the representation proceeding.
All representation issues raised by the Respondent
were or could have been litigated in the prior representa-
tion proceeding. The Respondent does not offer to ad-
duce at a hearing any newly discovered and previously
unavailable evidence, nor does it allege any special cir-
cumstances that would require the Board to reexamine
the decision made in the representation proceeding. We
therefore find that the Respondent has not raised any
representation issue that is properly litigable in this un-
fair labor practice proceeding. See Pittsburgh Plate
Glass Co. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941). Accord-
ingly, we grant the Motion for Summary Judgment.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent, a corporation,
with an office and place of business in Wampum, Penn-
sylvania, herein called the Respondent’s facility, has
been engaged in the manufacture of paving bricks.
During the 12-month period ending November 30,
2000, the Respondent, in conducting its business opera-
tions, sold and shipped from its Wampum, Pennsylvania,
facility goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to
points located outside the Commonwealth of Pennsyl-
vania.
We find that the Respondent is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(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 June 15, 2000, the Union
was certified on November 1, 2000, as the exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representative of the employees in the
following appropriate unit:
All full-time and regular part-time machine operators,
forklift operators and laborers employed by the Em-
ployer at its Wampum, Pennsylvania, facility; exclud-
ing all office clerical employees, plant managers and
guards, professional employees and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
The Union continues to be the exclusive representative un-
der Section 9(a) of the Act.
B. Refusal to Bargain
About November 16, 2000, the Union, by letter re-
quested the Respondent to recognize and bargain, and,
since about November 30, 2000, the Respondent has
failed and 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 failing and refusing on and after November 30,
2000, to bargain with the Union as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of employees in the ap-
propriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in unfair la-
bor 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.
To ensure that the employees are accorded the services
of their selected bargaining agent for the period provided
by the law, we shall construe the initial period of the cer-
tification 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.,
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2
149 NLRB 1419, 1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th
Cir. 1965).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Doren, Inc., Wampum, Pennsylvania, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain with Teamsters Local Union
261 a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–
CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of the
employees in the bargaining unit.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the following appro-
priate unit on terms and conditions of employment, and if
an understanding is reached, embody the understanding
in a signed agreement:
All full-time and regular part-time machine operators,
forklift operators and laborers employed by the Em-
ployer at its Wampum, Pennsylvania, facility; exclud-
ing all office clerical employees, plant managers and
guards, professional employees and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Wampum, Pennsylvania, copies of the at-
tached notice marked “Appendix.”1 Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 6
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main-
tained 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. In the event
that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Re-
spondent has gone out of business or closed the facility
involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall du-
plicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice

1 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 Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
to all current employees and former employees employed
by the Respondent at any time since November 30, 2000.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. February 21, 2000

John C. Truesdale, Chairman

Wilma B. Liebman, Member

Peter J. Hurtgen, Member

(SEAL) NATIONAL 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 vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to
post and abide by this notice.

WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with Teamsters Local
Union 261 a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
AFL–CIO, 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 exercise 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 bar-
gaining unit:
All full-time and regular part-time machine operators,
forklift operators and laborers employed by the Em-
ployer at its Wampum, Pennsylvania, facility; exclud-
ing all office clerical employees, plant managers and
guards, professional employees and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
DOREN, INC.