Sonoco Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 19, 1967

165 N.L.R.B. 619 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

SONOCO PRODUCTS COMPANY
Sonoco Products Company and Brotherhood
of Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers, Local
No. 70 , International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen &
Helpers of America , and Warehouse,
Processing and Allied Workers Local No. 6,
International Longshoremen's and
semen 's Union . Case 20-CA-4336.
June 19,1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND ZAGORIA
Upon an amended charge filed by Brotherhood of
Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America, and
Warehouse, Processing and Allied Workers Local
No. 6, International Longshoremen's and
Warehousemen's Union, herein called the Unions,
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board, by the Regional Director for Region 20,
issued a complaint dated February 16, 1967, against
Sonoco Products Company, herein called
Respondent, alleging that Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended. Copies of the charge, complaint, and
notice of hearing before a Trial Examiner were duly
served on the Respondent.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the
complaint alleges, in substance, that on
September 30, 1966, the Regional Director for
Region 20 duly certified the Unions as the exclusive
bargaining representative of Respondent's
employees in the unit found to be appropriate by the
Regional Director and that, since on or about
February 2, 1967, and continuing to date,
Respondent has refused and is refusing to recognize
or bargain with the Unions as such exclusive
bargaining representative, although the Unions have
requested and are requesting it to do so. On
March 2, 1967, the Respondent filed its answer
denying the commission of the unfair labor practices
alleged.
On April 10, 1967, the General Counsel filed with
the Board a Motion for Summary Judgment,
asserting, in view of admissions contained in the
Respondent's answer and other relevant material
annexed as appendices to the moving papers, that
there are no issues of fact or law requiring a hearing,
and praying the issuance of a Decision and Order
finding the violations as alleged in the complaint.
Thereafter, on April 11, 1967, the Board issued an
Order Transferring Proceeding to the Board, and, on
' The Unions also tiled separate petitions (Case 20-RC-66742
and 20-RC-6770) which together covered the same employees
sought in the joint petition
619
the same date, a Notice to Show Cause on or before
April 25,1967, why the General Counsel's Motion for
Summary Judgment should not be granted. On
April 24, 1967, the Respondent filed a Response to
the Notice to Show Cause.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the Board has delegated its powers in
connection with this case to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
makes the following:
RULING ON THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The record establishes that on February 3, 1966,
the Unions filed a joint petition seeking to represent
certain employees of Respondent (Case
20-RC-6773).' The Regional Director ordered a
consolidated hearing to determine whether any of
the three units sought in the petitions was
appropriate. On February 24, 1966, the Regional
Director issued his Decision, Order, and Direction of
Election in which he dismissed the two independent
petitions and directed an election in the overall unit
sought in the joint petition. The appropriate unit
consisted of the following employees of Respondent:
All production and maintenance employees and
shipping department employees, including
truckdrivers, of the Employer at its Hayward,
California, plant, excluding office clerical
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
On March 23, 1966, an election was conducted
among the employees in the above unit with the
Union receiving less than a majority of the valid
votes cast. On or about March 30, 1966, the Unions
filed Objections to Conduct Affecting Results of
Election. On July 13, 1966, the Regional Director
issued his Supplemental Decision and Order in
which he sustained the objections, set aside the
election, and ordered a new election.
On or about August 2, 1966, Respondent filed with
the Board a Request for Review of the Regional
Director's Supplemental Decision and Order. Ten
days later the Board telegraphed an Order denying
the request.
On August 17, 1966, a second election was held
among the employees in the aforementioned
appropriate unit with the Unions receiving a majority
of the valid votes cast. Respondent timely filed
objections to the election. On September 30, 1966,
the Regional Director overruled the objections and
certified the Unions as the exclusive representative
of the employees in the appropriate unit . On or about
October 5, 1966, Respondent filed with the Board a
Request for Review of the Regional Director's
decision, which the Board denied by telegraphic
order on November 14, 1966.
165 NLRB No. 68
620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
By letter dated January 27, 1967, the Unions
requested Respondent to meet with them for the
purpose of negotiating a collective-bargaining
agreement . By letter dated February 2, 1967,
Respondent refused the request.
In its Response to the Notice to Show Cause,
Respondent defends its refusal to bargain on the
ground that its objections to the second election
raise issues of fact which can only be resolved at a
hearing. We disagree.
In its Response, Respondent indicates that it is
ready to prove that (1) three Teamsters officials
threatened employee Mendonca on the day of the
first election; (2) Gonzales, a union organizer,
attempted to persuade employees to vote for the
Unions while they were waiting in line to vote; and
(3) Fagerhaugh, another union organizer, falsely
informed an employee that he was going to be
discharged unless he voted for the Unions, which
would protect him. The record indicates that
Respondent raised the identical allegations, inter
alia , in its Objections to the Second Election, as well
as in its Request for Review of the Regional
Director's Decision overruling the objections. Both
the Regional Director and the Board considered the
allegations and found them to be lacking in merit."
Respondent further contends that the election of
March 23, 1966, which the Unions lost, was a valid
election and, as such, constituted a bar to the second
election held within a year of the first election.
However, again, both the Regional Director and the
Board considered and rejected this contention. As
Respondent does not allege any fact not previously
considered by the Board, we see no reason to disturb
our previous findings. Accordingly, there are no
issues of fact or law which require a hearing.
Thus, as all material issues have been decided by
the Board in accordance with the allegations in the
complaint, the General Counsel's Motion for
Summary Judgment is granted. On the basis of the
record before it, the Board makes the following:
FINDING OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is a South Carolina corporation
engaged in the manufacture of spiral paper tubing at
its place of business in Hayward, California. During
the past year, Respondent, in the course and
conduct of its business operations, sold and
delivered goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly
to customers located outside the State of California.
Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Brotherhood of Teamsters and Auto Truck
Drivers, Local No. 70, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers
of America, and Warehouse, Processing and Allied
Workers Local No. 6, International Longshoremen's
and Warehousemen's Union, are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Representation Proceeding
1. The unit
The following employees of the Respondent
constitute a unit appropriate for collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act:
All production and maintenance employees and
shipping department employees, including
truckdrivers, of Respondent at its Hayward,
California, plant , excluding office clerical
employees , guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
2. The certification
On or about August 17, 1966, a majority of the
employees of Respondent in said unit, in a secret
election conducted under the supervision of the
Regional Director for Region 20, designated the
Unions as their collective-bargaining representative
for the purpose of collective bargaining with
Respondent. On September 30, 1966, the Regional
Director certified the Unions as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the
employees in said unit, and the Unions continue to
be such representative.
B. The Request to Bargain and the Respondent's
Refusal
Commencing on or about January 27, 1967, and
continuing to date, the Unions have requested and
are requesting Respondent to bargain collectively
with them as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of all the employees in the above-
described unit . Since February 2, 1967, and
continuing to date, Respondent has refused, and
continues to refuse, to bargain collectively with
the Unions as exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of all employees in said unit.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in
section III, above, occurring in connection with its
operations described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade,
traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
2 See the Regional Director 's Second Supplemental Decision
and Certification of Representative , attached to the formal papers
in this case as Appendix 10, and also the Board 's Order of
November 14, 1966, denying Respondent 's Request for Review
SONOCO PRODUCTS COMPANY
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow, of
commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall order that it cease
and desist therefrom, and, upon request, bargain
collectively with the Unions as the exclusive
representative of all employees in the appropriate
unit, and, if an understanding is reached, embody
such understanding in a signed agreement.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Sonoco Products Company is an Employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Brotherhood of Teamsters and Auto Truck
Drivers, Local No. 70, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers
of America, and Warehouse, Processing and Allied
Workers Local No. 6, International Longshoremen's
and Warehousemen's Union, are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees
and shipping department employees, including
truckdrivers, of Respondent at its Hayward,
California, plant, excluding office clerical
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act.
4. Since September 20, 1966, the above-named
labor organizations have been the exclusive
representative of all employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the
Act.
5. By refusing on or about February 2, 1967, and
at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with
the above-named labor organizations as the
exclusive bargaining representative of all the
employees of Respondent in the appropriate unit,
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5)
of the Act.
6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain,
Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced, and is interfering with, restraining, and
coercing, employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, and has
thereby engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
' In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a
United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the
621
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Sonoco Products Company, Hayward, California, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
terms and conditions of employment with
Brotherhood of Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers,
Local No. 70, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers
of America, and Warehouse, Processing and Allied
Workers Local No. 6, International Longshoremen's
and Warehousemen's Union, as the exclusive -
bargaining representative of the employees in the
following appropriate unit:
All production and maintenance employees and
shipping department employees, including
truckdrivers, of Respondent at its Hayward,
California, plant, excluding office clerical
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the
Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain with the aboved-named
labor organizations as the exclusive representative
of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit,
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other terms and conditions of
employment, and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its Hayward, California, plant, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies
of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 20, after being duly signed by
Respondent's representative, shall be posted by
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 for Region 20, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
words "a Decision and Order" the words "a Decree of the United
States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order "
622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to Decision and Order of the National
Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the
policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively
with Brotherhood of Teamsters and Auto Truck
Drivers, Local No. 70, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America, and
Warehouse, Processing and Allied Workers
Local No. 6, International Longshoremen's and
Warehousemen's Union, as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the
bargaining unit described below.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively
with Brotherhood of Teamsters and Auto Truck
Drivers, Local No. 70, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America, and
Warehouse, Processing and Allied Workers
Local No. 6, International Longshoremen's and
Warehousemen's Union, as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the
bargaining unit described below.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act.
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the
above-named Unions as the exclusive
representative of all employees in the
bargaining unit described below with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and
other terms and conditions of employment and,
if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement.
The bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees
and shipping department employees,
including truckdrivers, at our Hayward,
California, plant, excluding office clerical
employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
SONOCO PRODUCTS
COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(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, 13050 Federal Building, 50 Golden Gate
Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102, Telephone
556-3197.