Wagner Electric Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1977

232 N.L.R.B. 780 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Wagner Electric Corporation and Local Union 903,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO. Cases 15-CA-6438 and 15-CA-6528
September 30, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
PENEl.I. AND MURPHY
Upon a charge filed on April 18, 1977, by Local
Union 903, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL CIO, herein called the Union, and
duly served on Wagner Electric Corporation, herein
called the Respondent, the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional
Director for Region 15, issued a complaint and
notice of hearing on May 17, 1977, in Case 15-CA-
6438, alleging that Respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and
(I) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the charge,
complaint, and notice of hearing before an Adminis-
trative L aw Judge were duly served on the parties to
this proceeding.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the
complaint alleges in substance that on January 31,
1977, following a Board election in Case 15-RC
5947 the Union was duly certified as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of Respondent's
employees in the unit found appropriate: ' and that,
commencing on or about February 28, 1977, and at
all times thereafter, Respondent has refused, and
continues to date to refuse, to bargain collectively
with the Union as the exclusive bargaining represen-
tative, although the Union has requested and is
requesting it to do so. On May 27, 1977, Respondent
filed its answer to the complaint admitting in part,
and denying in part, the allegations in the complaint.
On June 10, 1977, counsel for the General Counsel
tiled directly with the Board a Motion for Summary
Judgment. Subsequently, on June 22, 1977, the Board
issued an order transferring the proceeding to the
Board and a Notice To Show Cause why the General
Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment should not
be granted. Respondent thereafter filed a response to
Notice To Show Cause entitled "Memorandum in
Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment."
Thereafter, upon a charge and an amended charge
filed by the Union, the Regional Director issued a
complaint and an amended complaint in Case 15-
Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding,
Case 15 R(' 5947. as the term "record" is defined in Secs. 102.68 and
IO2 69(gl of the Board's Rules and Regulations. Series 8, as amended. See
I.I'l 'letrovsvitem, ,In. 166 NLRB 938 (1967), enifd 388 F.2d 683 (C.A. 4.
232 NLRB No. 122
CA-6528 alleging that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act on or about June 21 and
July 15, 1977, respectively, by unilaterally instituting
a third shift affecting unit employees and by
unilaterally granting to all unit employees a 30-cent-
per-hour wage increase, I additional day of funeral
leave, and I additional hour of call-in pay without
notice to and/or consultation or bargaining with the
Union. The Respondent's answers admit the factual
allegations of the complaint, but defend on the
ground that the election in the underlying representa-
tion case and the Union's certification are invalid.
Thereafter, a "Joint Motion by all Parties to Transfer
and Consolidate Cases Before the Board" was filed,
requesting that the Board consolidate Case 15-CA-
6528 with Case 15-CA-6438. As the Respondent's
defense in the former case is identical to that in the
latter one, we grant the joint motion.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority 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 and response to the
Notice To Show Cause Respondent basically con-
tests the validity of the Union's majority status and
certification on the basis of its election Objection 7,
pertaining to union misrepresentations, upon which
no hearing was held, and claims that due process of
law requires a full hearing thereon, at which time it
wishes to present newly discovered and previously
unavailable evidence bearing on the Union's abdica-
tion of bargaining rights and its majority status.
Counsel for the General Counsel contends that there
are no triable issues requiring a hearing and that
Respondent is attempting here to relitigate issues
which were raised and determined in the underlying
representation proceeding and this it may not do. We
agree with the General Counsel.
Review of the entire record, including that in Case
15-RC-5947, discloses that pursuant to a Stipulation
for Certification Upon Consent Election, an election
was conducted on August 27, 1976, which the Union
won by a vote of 27 to 23. Respondent filed timely
objections to conduct affecting the results of the
election alleging, in substance (1) trespass by union
agents on the day of the election, (2) financial
inducements, (3) misrepresentations as to dues if the
Union won the election, (4) conveying the impression
1968); Golden Age Beverage Co., 167 NLRB 151 (1967). enfd. 415 F.2d 26
(C.A. 5. 1969); Intert)pe Co. v. Penello, 269 F.Supp. 573 (D.C.Va.. 1967);