Texas Uranium Operations

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 17, 1980

248 N.L.R.B. 1183 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

TEXAS URANIUM OPERATIONS 1183
Texas Uranium Operations, United States Steel
Corp. and Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers
International Union, AFL-CIO. Case 23-CA-
7722
April 17, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND TRUESDALE
Upon a charge filed on October 31, 1979, by Oil,
Chemical and Atomic Workers International
Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, and
duly served on Texas Uranium Operations, United
States Steel Corp., herein called Respondent, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board, by the Acting Regional Director for Region
23, issued a complaint on November 7, 1979,
against Respondent, alleging that Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce 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 and complaint were duly
served on the parties to this proceeding.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the
complaint alleges in substance that on September
14, 1978, the Union was duly certified as the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of Respon-
dent's employees in the unit found appropriate
"until July 23, 1979": that before that date Respon-
dent's recognition of the Union was embodied in a
collective-bargaining agreement dated November 1,
1978, effective by its terms from said date to Octo-
ber 31, 1981; that a petition to clarify the said unit
by inclusion of the classification of "radiation
safety inspector" was duly filed by the Union in
Case 23-UC-97 on June 14, 1979, and a decision
and clarification of bargaining unit including that
classification duly issued on July 23, 1979, as to
which Respondent's request for review was denied
by the Board on September 25, 1979, and Respon-
dent's motion for reconsideration was denied by
the Board on October 22, 1979; that on October 4
and October 25, 1979, the Union requested Respon-
dent to bargain in the clarified unit; that since on
or about October 8 and October 29, 1979, and at
all times thereafter, Respondent has failed and re-
fused to recognize, meet, and bargain with the
Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of
its employees in the unit as clarified on July 23,
1979, by the inclusion of employees in the classifi-
cation of "radiation safety inspector," and that Re-
spondent continues to date to refuse to bargain col-
lectively with the Union as the exclusive bargain-
ing representative, "for the purpose of testing the
248 NLRB No. 137
validity of the clarified unit." ' On November 16,
1979, Respondent filed its answer to the complaint
admitting in part, and denying in part, the allega-
tions in the complaint.
On November 30, 1979, counsel for the General
Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for
Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on December 4,
1979, the Board issued an order transferring the
proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show
Cause why the General Counsel's Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment should not be granted. Respondent
thereafter failed to file a response to Notice To
Show Cause.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following:
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
In its answer to the complaint Respondent
admits all of the allegations of the complaint, in-
cluding that it is continuing to fail and refuse to
bargain with the Union for the purpose of testing
the validity of the clarified unit; Respondent denies
only paragraph 18 of the complaint that it is failing
and refusing to bargain collectively and in good
faith with the representative of its employees and
that it has engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
It is well settled that in the absence of newly dis-
covered or previously unavailable evidence or spe-
cial circumstances a respondent in a proceeding al-
leging a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled
to relitigate issues which were or could have been
litigated in a prior representation proceeding. 2
All issues raised by Respondent in this proceed-
ing were or could have been litigated in the prior
representation proceeding, and Respondent does
not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discov-
ered or previously unavailable evidence, nor does
it allege that any special circumstances exist herein
which would require the Board to reexamine the
decision made in the representation proceeding. We
therefore find that Respondent has not raised any
issue which is properly litigable in this unfair labor
i Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceed-
ing, Case 23 UC 97, as the term "record" is defined in Secs 102.68 and
102.69(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations. Series 8, as amended See
LTV Electrosysems, Inc., 166 NLRB 938 (1967), enfd 388 F.2d 683 (4th
Cir. 1968); Golden Age Beverage Co., 167 NLRB 151 (1967), enfd. 415
F.2d 26 (5th Cir. 1969): Interrype Co. s Penello, 269 F Supp 573 (DC
Va., 1967); Follettrr Corp., 164 NLRB 378 (1967), enfd 397 F.2d 91 (7th
Cir. 1968); Sec. 9(d) of the NLRA, as amended.
2 See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v N.L.R.B., 313 U S 146, 162 (1941).
Rules and Regulations of the Board, Secs 102 67(f) and 102.6 9(c)
TEXAS URANIUM OPERATIONS
1184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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
Respondent, a Delaware corporation, with its
principal office located at 600 Winnebago Street in
the city of Corpus Christi, Texas, is engaged in the
operation of solution mining of uranium at its
George West facility in George West, Texas. In
the course and conduct of its business operations at
the George West, Texas, facility, Respondent annu-
ally sold and shipped products, goods, and materi-
als valued in excess of $50,000 from its George
West facility directly to customers located outside
the State of Texas.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Re-
spondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and
that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International
Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization 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 Respondent consti-
tute a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining
purposes until July 23, 1979, within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees
and laboratory technicians employed by the
Employer at its Clay West uranium plant lo-
cated in George West, Texas; excluding all
other employees, office clerical employees,
guards, watchmen and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
On July 23, 1979, the Acting Regional Director
for Region 23 issued a Decision and Clarification
of Bargaining Unit, Case 23-UC-97, clarifying the
bargaining unit by including therein employees in
the classification of "radiation safety inspector." On
September 25, 1979, the Board denied Respon-
dent's request for review of the Acting Regional
Director's decision. On October 22, 1979, the
Board denied Respondent's motion for reconsider-
ation of the Board's denial of request for review.
2. The certification
The Union was certified as the collective-bar-
gaining representative of the employees in said unit
on September 14, 1978, and the Union continues to
be such exclusive representative within the mean-
ing of Section 9(a) of the Act. On July 23, 1979,
the appropriate bargaining unit was clarified by in-
cluding therein employees in the classification of
"radiation safety inspector."3
B. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's
Refusal
Commencing on or about October 4 and October
25, 1979, and at all times thereafter, the Union has
requested Respondent to bargain collectively with
it as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of all the employees in the above-described
clarified unit. Commencing on or about October 8,
1979, and October 29, 1979, and continuing at all
times thereafter to date, Respondent has refused,
and continues to refuse, to recognize and bargain
with the Union as the exclusive representative for
collective bargaining of all employees in said clari-
fied unit.
Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since
October 8 and 29, 1979, and at all times thereafter,
refused to bargain collectively with the Union, the
exclusive representative of the employees in the ap-
propriate unit, and by such refusal, Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with its oper-
ations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf-
fic, and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging 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 Union
as the exclusive representative of all employees in
the appropriate unit, and, if an understanding is
I Case 23-UC-97.
TEXAS URANIUM OPERATIONS 1185
reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement.
In order to insure that the employees in the ap-
propriate unit as clarified will be accorded the ser-
vices of their selected bargaining agent for the
period provided by law, we shall construe the ini-
tial period of certification as beginning on the date
Respondent commences to bargain in good faith
with the Union as the recognized bargaining repre-
sentative of the appropriate unit as clarified. See
Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., 136 NLRB 785
(1962); Commerce Company d/b/a Lamar Hotel,
140 NLRB 226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328 F.2d (5th Cir.
1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817; Burnett Construc-
tion Company, 149 NLRB 1419, 1421 (1964), enfd.
350 F.2d (10th Cir. 1965).
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record, makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Texas Uranium Operations, United States Steel
Corp., is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Interna-
tional Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees,
laboratory technicians and radiation safety inspec-
tors employed by Respondent at its Clay West ura-
nium plant located in George West, Texas, but ex-
cluding all other employees, office clerical employ-
ees, guards, watchmen and supervisors as defined
in the Act, constitute the appropriate unit, as certi-
fied September 14, 1978, and clarified on July 23,
1979, for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. The above-named labor organization has been
and now is the certified and exclusive representa-
tive of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate
unit for the purpose of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By refusing on or about October 8 and Octo-
ber 29, 1979, and at all times thereafter, to bargain
collectively with the above-named labor organiza-
tion 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 Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) of the Act.
6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respon-
dent 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 thereby has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
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 Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Texas Uranium Operations, United States Steel
Corp., George West, Texas, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning
rates of pay, wages, and other terms and conditions
of employment with Oil, Chemical, and Atomic
Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, as the ex-
clusive bargaining representative of its employees
in the following appropriate unit as clarified on
July 23, 1979:
All production and maintenance employees,
laboratory technicians and radiation safety in-
spectors employed by Respondent at its Clay
West uranium plant located in George West,
Texas, but excluding all other employees,
office clerical employees, guards, watchmen
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(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 which
the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named
labor organization as exclusive representative of all
employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with re-
spect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms
and conditions of employment, and, if an under-
standing is reached, embody such understanding in
a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its Clay West facility in George West,
Texas, copies of the attached notice marked "Ap-
pendix." 4 Copies of said notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 23, after
being duly signed by Respondent's representative,
shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
4 In the event that 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 National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board"
TEXAS URANIUM OPERATIONS
1186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 23,
in writing, within 20 days from the date of this
Order, what steps have been taken to comply here-
with.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively
concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment
with Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Inter-
national Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the bargain-
ing unit described below.
WE WILL. NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the
above-named Union, as the exclusive represen-
tative of all employees in the bargaining unit
described below, with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours, 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,
laboratory technicians and radiation safety
inspectors employed by the Respondent at
its Clay West uranium plant located in
George West, Texas, but excluding all other
employees, office clerical employees, guards,
watchmen and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
TEXAS URANIUM OPERATIONS,
UNITED STATES STEEL CORP.