State Bank Of India

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 14, 1984

273 N.L.R.B. 267 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

STATE BANK OF INDIA • • 267
•
State Bank of India and Local 6, International Fed-
eration of Health Professionals, International
Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO. Case
2-CA-19667
14 December 1984
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
ZIMMERMAN AND DENNIS
Upon a charge filed by the Union 26 May 19831
the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board issued a complaint 20 July against the
Bank, the Respondent, alleging that it has violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Ite
tions Act. Copies of the charge and the complaint
were duly served on the parties to this proceeding.
The complaint alleges that about 28 April the
Respondent, without notice to or bargaining -with
the Union, granted a wage increase to unit employ-
ees effective retroactively to 1 April. On 2 August
the Respondent filed its answer to the complaint
admitting in part and denying in part the allega-
tions of the Complaint.
On 17 October the General Counsel filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment. On 19 October 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 Bank filed a re-
sponse.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed . its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
In its response to the Notice to 'Show Cause, the
Bank contends that the Board should deny the
Motion for Summary Judgment and dismiss the
complaint in its entirety because: (1) The Bank is a
direct instrumentality of the Government of India
and therefore is not an "employer" as that term is
defined in the National Labor Relations Act or in
the alternative is an employer over which the
Board in its discretion should not exercise jurisdic-
tion; (2) there is now pending before the Board a
related Motion for Summary Judgment which pre-
sents a threshold issue testing the underlying certi-
fication; and (3) the Respondent promised the wage
increase , to its employees in October 1982 and the
increase was given as of a date the Bank tradition-
ally has granted salary increases. •
In his Motion for Summary Judgment, the Gen-
eral Counsel asserts that the Bank is raising issues
which were raised and determined or could have
1 All dates are in 1983 unless otherwise indicated
been raised and determined in the underlying rep-
resentation proceeding. We agree with the General
Counsel.
In a letter dated 4 March, the Union noted its
certification 2 by the, Board and demanded that the
Bank- bargain with it. By letter dated 17 March, the
Bank's attorney notified the Union that the Bank
considered the Board's certification of the Union to
be wrong and that it would therefore decline to
bargain with the Union. The Bank has refused at
all times since 17 March to bargain with the Union.
On 28 April the Bank granted wage increases ret-
roactive to 1 April to its employees in the unit de-
scribed above without prior notification to, or con-
sultation or negotiations with, the Union.
The Bank contends that the Board does not have
jurisdiction over it because it is a direct instrumen-
tality of the Government of India and therefore it
is not an "employer" as that term is defined in the
Act. The Board rejected this argument in State
Bank of India, 2,29 NLRB 838 (1977), and that de-
cision is controlling here.3
The Bank further contends that the pending
technical 8(a)(5) proceeding would render prelim-
titre a decision in the instant case. The Board, has
granted the Motion , for Summary Judgment in
Case 2-CA-19487, thereby rendering this conten-
tion moot.4
Finally, the Bank's contention that it gave the
wage increase on the basis of an earlier promise is
not a legally sufficient defense. Even accepting the
Bank's evidence that the employees were promised
a wage increase in April and that the timing. of the
increase was predetermined, the amount of the in-
crease was discretionary and became a matter as to
which the Bank was obligated to consult with the
bargaining agent.5
We therefore find that the Bank has raised no
issue which is properly litigable in this unfair labor
practice proceeding. Accordingly, we grant the
Motion for Summary Judgment.
On the basis of the entire record, the Board
makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Company is a 'financial institution organized
under the'laws of India and licensed to do business
in the State of New York, with a place of business
The Union was certified as the representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit 23 February in Case 2-RC-19372
2 See also State Bank of India, 262 NLRB 1108 (1982)
4 273 NLRB 38 (1984)
5 -Charles Mfg Co. 245 NLRB 39 (1979), Onezta Knitting Mills, 205
NLRB 500 fn 1 (1973) See also State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Ca,
195 NLRB 871, 890 (1972)
273 NLRB No. 39
268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at 460 Park Avenue, New York, New York. Annu-
ally, in the course and conduct of its business oper-
ations, the Respondent derives gross revenues in
excess of $1 million and engages in interstate finan-
cial transactions in excess of $100,000 from its New
York place of business. 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 mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Unit and the Union's Representative
Status
The following-employees of the Respondent con-
stitute a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining
purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
All full-time and regular part-tithe employees
employed by Respondent at its 460 Park
Avenue, New York, New York facility includ-
ing tellers, clerks, clerk-typists, messengers,
bookkeepers, receptionists, secretaries and ma-
chine operators, but excluding all officers,
managerial and professional employees, confi-
dential employees, India-based temporary and
other temporary employees, maintenance em-
ployees, guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
The Union was certified as the collective-bargain-
ing representative of the employees in the unit on
23 February, and the -Union continues to be the ex-
clusive representative under Section 9(a) of the
Act.
B. The Refusal to Bargain
About 28 April the Respondent, without notice
to or bargaining with the Union, granted a wage
increase to employees in the unit. -
We find the Respondent has, by this conduct,
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By granting a wage increase to unit employees
on 28 April 1983, without notice to or bargaining
with the Union, the Company has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the ,meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and -(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
THE 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 and, on request, bargain collec-
tively with the Union concerning wage increases
for unit employees.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board hereby
orders that the Respondent, State Bank of India,
New York, New York, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall .
1. , Cease and desist from
_ (a) Refusing to bargain with Local 6, Interna-
tional ,Federation of Health Professionals, Interna-
tional Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO as
the exclusive bargaining representative of its em-
ployees in the bargaining unit, by granting wage in-
creases without prior notice to or bargaining with
the Union, providing that the Respondent shall not
be required to rescind any wage increase previous-
ly granted.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed them in 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 concerning wage increases.
All full-time and regular part-time employees
employed by Respondent at its 460 Park
Avenue,. New York, New York facility includ-
ing tellers, clerks, clerk-typists, messengers,
bookkeepers, receptionists, secretaries and ma-
chine operators, but excluding all officers,
managerial and professional employees, confi-
dential -employees, India-based temporary and
other temporary employees, maintenance em-
ployees, guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
(b) Post at its facility in New -York, New York,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."6
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 2, after being signed by
the Respondent's authorized representative,- shall
posted by the Respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places including all places where no-
tices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able .steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
ensure that the notices - are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
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 Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board "
STATE BANK OF INDIA 269
(c) 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
WE WILL NOT grant wage increases to unit em-
ployees without prior notice to or bargaining with
Local 6, International Federation of Health Profes-
sionals, International Longshoremen's Association,
AFL-CIO as the exclusive representative of its em-
ployees in the following appropriate unit described
below.
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, as
the exclusive representative of all employees in the
bargaining unit described below, with respect to
wage increases. The bargaining unit is:
All full-time and regular part-time employees
employed by Respondent at its 460 Park
Avenue, New York, New York facility includ-
ing tellers, clerks, clerk-typists, messengers,
bookkeepers, receptionists, secretaries and ma-
chine operators, but excluding all officers,
managerial and professional employees, confi-
dential employees, India-based temporary and
• other temporary employees, maintenance em-
ployees, guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
STATE BANK OF INDIA